Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRIGHTON MARINE PALACE AND PIER BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 11 December.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Butter

Mr. Sean Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much butter is currently stored in intervention in the United Kingdom; how much butter is imported annually into the United Kingdom; and what steps he is taking to improve the marketing of British butter.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): The United Kingdom currently has about 260,000 tonnes of butter in intervention. Imports have declined in each of the last five years and stood at 138,700 tonnes in 1985. The marketing of British butter is primarily a matter for the industry itself, but the Government have taken the initiative of establishing Food From Britain, with substantial Government funding, and are pressing for reform of the Community's milk regime in order to secure a viable long-term future for the United Kingdom dairy industry.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister confirm that butter stocks in British intervention stores have increased by a staggering 33 per cent. in the past six months? That being so, will the Government make a quantity of butter available, free, to old-age pensioners this Christmas?

Mr. Gummer: If we could find a way to ensure that the butter that was given to deserving people did not mean that there was less butter sold and, therefore, more going into intervention, we would be happy to do it. I am looking carefully at proposals, but I have not found a way to do it. I would like to, but I cannot see that it is sensible to increase the stocks of butter by providing at great expense the sort of system which we have done before.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the New Zealanders and other importers have access

to the United Kingdom market but do not have the right to sell? They must sell their butter on better performance and better price. Therefore, it is the English butter industry which is failing to sell its British butter production.

Mr. Gummer: It is important that the British butter industry should seek to sell to British housewives. It is difficult to talk about the fact that we are self-sufficient if we are putting so many tonnes of butter into intervention while other people, not just New Zealanders, are selling their butter on our market even though, in many cases, that butter is more expensive than ours. New Zealand butter was more expensive than British butter in Tesco's last Monday, and it is only 1p less expensive in Sainsbury's today.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. John Hume.

Mr. John Home Robertson: rose—

Mr. John David Taylor: It is not the first time you have made that mistake, Mr. Speaker. Other people in Northern Ireland have suffered worse for the same mistake.
As the stocks of butter are a fundamental reason why an urgent reform of the common agricultural policy is required, is the Minister not surprised that a reform of the CAP is not on the agenda for the meeting of the Heads of the EEC Governments when they meet later this month?

Mr. Gummer: The basic arguments about the reform of the agricultural policy are on the agenda for the meeting of the Agriculture Ministers next week, when we will try to get an answer to our dairy and beef problems and the structures. That is where the negotiations ought to take place, and that is where we shall take the steps which this presidency is determined to achieve.

Mr. McLoughlin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that we keep confidence in the dairy industry?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Is he not disturbed by the remarks of Sir Stephen Roberts, the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board, this morning, who said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must paraphrase not quote.

Mr. McLoughlin: The chairman of the Milk Marketing Board is predicting that there will be a cut of 11 per cent. in the British dairy quota. He is also predicting the loss of thousands of jobs in the United Kingdom creamery industry. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such scaremongering, ahead of any consultations and any proposals, is damaging the British dairy industry?

Mr. Gummer: The kind of statements that are sometimes made frighten people entirely unnecessarily. There needs to be a more sensible balance between supply and demand in the dairy industry, and it has to be achieved on a time scale that is acceptable to the industry. We must also ensure that it is fair across the whole of Europe. That is what this Government are determined to achieve, and that is what we shall be fighting for on Monday.

Mr. Home Roberston: As the British presidency is about to finish with an all-time record butter mountain that is costing £1 million a day, is the Minister aware that the whole House hopes that he will be able to redeem his reputation at next week's Council meeting? The Opposition would strongly support effective action to


control over-production, but we expect the Minister not to sell out Britain's interests, as he did in 1984, otherwise this particular turkey is likely to be set aside long before Christmas.

Mr. Gummer: We obtained an extremely good deal for Britain's interests in 1984. We have never sold out Britain's interests. The only people who sell out Britain's interests are those who suggest that this Government do not stand four square behind the consumer and the farmer in Britain.

Food Prices

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the percentage rise in food prices between 1980 and 1985 as compared with all consumer expenditure items.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): Between 1980 and 1985, the food component of the retail prices index rose by 31 per cent. compared with a 42 per cent. increase in the retail prices index as a whole.

Mr. Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a splendid success for British agriculture and for the British Government? Will he compare the average annual increase of 6·1 per cent. under this Government with the 16·4 per cent. each year under the last Labour Government?

Mr. Thompson: I should like to compare that increase again and to emphasise the comparison. I reiterate the 6·1 per cent. increase under this Government and the 16·4 per cent. increase under the previous Government. We try as hard as we can to keep food prices at a reasonable level.

Mr. Deakins: Would it make any difference to the comparison the Minister has drawn if the base figure was that for 1978 or 1979?

Mr. Thompson: The fact remains that food prices have increased at a lower rate under this Government than when the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in his party's Government.

Mr. Marland: Does my hon. Friend agree that the marvellous record of the food producers of this country is a great contribution towards reducing the rate of inflation?

Mr. Thompson: It is not difficult to agree with that question. Indeed, I fully agree with it.

Mr. Randall: Does the Minister agree that the figures he has quoted are averages and that they are quite misleading in respect of poor people? Does he agree that food prices for the poor are much higher, certainly when they are expressed as a percentage of the total income of those who fall into this category?

Mr. Thompson: Not all food prices rise and fall at the same rate. There have been declines this year in the price of food that the poor buy—for instance, in lamb, margarine, cooking fats, tea, sugar, processed vegetables and processed fruit. There has been a relatively stable market in fresh beef, bacon, chicken, pork, butter, milk products, soft drinks and ice cream. Therefore, a total diet can easily be constructed by buying food that has not increased, or has increased very little, in price.

Sheep Farmers (Radiation Compensation)

Sir Hector Monro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures have been taken to compensate sheep farmers affected by the restrictions imposed following the Chernobyl disaster.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): Following full discussions with industry representatives, we introduced three schemes of compensation for sheep producers in the areas in which movement and slaughter restrictions have been imposed. We consider that these compensation arrangements represent a fair and balanced response to the needs of sheep producers whose marketing, prices and costs have been affected by the restrictions.

Sir Hector Monro: I thank my right hon. Friend for the steps that he has taken, unlike any other country, following Chernobyl. However, will he do all that he can to ensure that every farmer who has lost income because of the disaster receives compensation through one or other of these very helpful schemes?

Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I shall certainly be prepared to consider any new cases which might slip through the arrangements which we already have. I should have thought that we had already thought through almost all the cases where there has been hardship.

Mr. Torney: What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that British sheep farmers are compensated for the sheep that were stolen or damaged when they were taken across to France? Will he ensure that France pays that compensation to British farmers? Will he take retaliatory action if that sort of thing is continued by the French?

Mr. Jopling: Although the question was about Chernobyl, I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman, as he will no doubt have seen in the press, that the French Government have said that they will be responsible for compensation in those lamentable cases.

Mr. Livsey: Will the Secretary of State, having acknowledged the fact that the sheep farmers have been badly affected by Chernobyl, now recognise that they face further threats in the less-favoured areas from the cereal set-aside policy? Has the Secretary of State plans to assist—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question concerns compensating sheep farmers.

Mr. Livsey: Has the Secretary of State plans to assist the sheep farmers who may be affected?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Jopling: I am afraid that I did not hear the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, because of the noise made by hon. Members wondering whether the hon. Gentleman was aware of what Chernobyl was. He will no doubt have seen—although perhaps he has not—the various schemes, which have been widely welcomed by the sheep farmers affected by that unfortunate fall-out.

Mr. Home Robertson: In view of the public concern among sheep farmers and others about Chernobyl, which is reinforced by the fact that sheep are still under restriction and affected more than seven months after an


event which took place 1,400 miles away, will the Minister undertake to publish new contingency measures to deal with nuclear emergencies as soon as they are prepared?

Mr. Jopling: Levels remain high only in the upland areas. Of the 4 million sheep in the United Kingdom which were originally subject to controls, fewer than 300,000 remain under control. Levels remain high because of a number of factors arising from the nature of the terrain and the dietary habits of sheep in upland areas. I shall certainly make announcements as I think it right and proper to make them.

Quick-frozen Foodstuffs

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received about European Community document 9402/84 on the approximation of laws relating to quick-frozen foodstuffs; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Donald Thompson: We have received recent written and oral comments from the representatives of frozen food manufacturers, retailers and refrigeration engineers. Discussions are continuing in Brussels. We are maintaining a general reserve on this proposal.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will continue to oppose this unhelpful draft directive, which is harmful to both consumers and traders? Will he tell the Commission that this nation of shopkeepers knows more about selling frozen foods than the rest of the Common Market put together?

Mr. Thompson: I agree that this is one of the dafter Common Market directives. We will oppose the Community measures in this field unless we can modify them to meet United Kingdom interests.

Sir John Wells: Is my hon. Friend aware that the entire frozen food industry, especially at the retail end, is extremely concerned about the regulations concerning cabinets and so on—

Mr. Robert Atkins: There is nothing wrong with our Cabinet.

Sir John Wells: I was referring to freezer cabinets. That is causing great concern to the trade, and I hope that my hon. Friend will look into it.

Mr. Thompson: I am fully aware of the retail trade's concern. I have arranged today to meet some of its representatives so that we can see whether we can possibly find a way through this directive that will help everyone in the United Kingdom.

Dairy Industry

Mr. Latham: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the proposed charge to dairy farmers in respect of inspections.

Mr. Gummer: I explained the basis of the proposed charge in the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 20 November. The £90 charge will cost wholesale producers with the best standards less than £30 a year. Even so my right hon. Friend and I are considering a reduction to £80 for herds of fewer than 20 cows. We also propose to adjust

our arrangements so that charging will bear less heavily on the untreated milk sector, including farmhouse caterers using untreated milk. Proposals for regulations are being issued today.

Mr. Latham: That is a step in the right direction. However, when milk producers face further cuts in quotas, is this not a bad time to impose charges of up to £90 for a visit that often last much less than an hour? Should not those charges be substantially reduced?

Mr. Gummer: I do not think that my hon. Friend is right about that. The charge is made not for the visit but to cover the cost of carrying it out, including all the back-up work, administration, testing, travel time and so on. I have been through every detail making up the charges and I have convinced myself that they are the right charges, with no element of profit whatsoever. In those circumstances, it is not unreasonable that farmers should have to bear the cost of ensuring that their market is greater because their products are so clearly guaranteed.

Mr. Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is somewhat misleading to use the argument about the number of visits that the £80 or £90 will cover? It is how he arrives at those figures that troubles dairy farmers.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is no doubt right that people are troubled by that, partly because some people—I know that my hon. Friend is also concerned about this—have made statements that are entirely untrue. Consequently, I have sought to give the exact details. I should be happy to go into those details with any hon. Member, because I want people to know that we have been absolutely fair.

Mr. Home Robertson: Why have dairy farmers been singled out for these excessive, unjustifiable charges, or do the Government intend to impose similar charges on shops and restaurants for their public health inspections?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman destroys his case by talking about excessive charges. They are not excessive. They cover the cost of undertaking that work. They ensure that the dairy industry can sell more milk than it would otherwise sell. We have been very careful in that we do not propose to charge those catering in their own homes using untreated milk. That seems to be sensible. We have tried to obtain a proper balance, but ultimately it is reasonable for people to pay the price of ensuring that they sell more of their products and that others in competition have the same high standards.

Mr. Jackson: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House of the average cost to public funds of subsidising every dairy herd in the country?

Mr. Gummer: On average, every dairy herd in the country is subsidised from public funds to the tune of £6,000 a year—

Mr. Budgen: £8,000.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend may like to know that the figure of £8,000 was for the year before; it is £6,000 this year. I should like us to be absolutely accurate. The shops, restaurants and so on mentioned by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) pay rates, out of which their testing is done.

Industrial Fishing

Mr. Richard Page: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent steps the Government have taken to control industrial fishing within the EEC.

Mr. Gummer: At the end of 1985 we successfully opposed an increase in the by-catch in the Norway pout fishery for the 1985–86 season; during the revision of the technical conservation regulations, which will take effect on 1 January 1987, we obtained further improvements including a total ban on the shredding and processing of fish for industrial purposes on board vessels, and additions to the list of protected species. I believe that we should fight against this kind of industrial fishing.

Mr. Page: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, although I do not think that it will affect the fishing fleet of south-west Hertfordshire. Will the new provisions that were brought in on 6 November have any effect on these industrial fisheries?

Mr. Gummer: Indeed, they will. We are fighting such fishing in various ways. We have just made a trilateral agreement with Norway and Sweden, and will stand fast by our determination not to see the sort of industrial fishing that some want. It means that the Commission's inspectors will be able to require inspection and sampling in their presence of the catches of vessels that they have specified. Consequently, they will be able to oversee the discharge of industrial catches from specified vessels. Under this extremely successful common fisheries policy, we shall once again on a Community basis be able to control industrial fishing.

Mr. Wallace: I welcome the moves which the Government have made to restore the Norwegian pout fishing by-catch to 10 per cent. Will the Minister take this opportunity to say whether at yesterday's meeting of the Council of Ministers there were any measures agreed that will help to control industrial fishing? Perhaps he will refer to some of the measures that will help the fishing fleet but are not directed to combating industrial fishing?

Mr. Gummer: With the measures that we negotiated right through last night we shall be able to help the British fishing industry considerably. I shall be announcing later precisely what these are. On industrial fishing, the great advantage was that for the first time in the Fisheries Council no one even suggested that we should be extending the Danes' right to catch Norwegian pout. That shows how much we have progressed in the past 18 months. I believe that, on that basis, the battle has been won.

Mr. Harris: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the position which he has set out today. Does he agree that industrial fishing of all sorts, particularly the dreadful experience that we had of the bulk fishing of mackerel, has brought stocks to a desperate state in the seas around our coast? Will he continue to fight against this exploitation of those stocks?

Mr. Gummer: Fish is an extremely valuable food and far too valuable to be used for industrial purposes as some have done in the past. Production for those purposes can take place far more effectively on land. If other means are used for the production of that sort of protein, we should have a fishery that is used for human consumption.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I welcome the advance that has been made in reducing the by-catch in pout fishing. Will the Minister remember that there are certain forms of industrial fishing, for fish such as sand-eels and blue whiting, that are not for human consumption, and that that should continue despite his worthy efforts to end the other type of industrial fishing?

Mr. Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that we do not want to stop industrial fishing for species that cannot be used for human consumption. The Government are determined in all the circumstances to lean towards conservation of stocks for human consumption. That is a proper and moral way of using the benefits of the sea.

Mr. Skinner: Has the Minister noticed that the Foreign Secretary has found a pretty good answer, in his opinion, to the threat of industrial fishing around the Falklands, and that is the imposition of a 150-mile exclusion zone? If that zone will work there, why do we not introduce such a zone here and tell the other members of the EEC and the rest of them, who we reckon to be our colleagues, that we are taking the action to save the British fishing industry?

Mr. Gummer: It is sad that the hon. Gentleman knows so little about fishing, as he would coming from his constituency, that he does not understand that it is because of the EEC common fisheries policy that we are protecting the fish for the whole of Europe. I am proud that we are doing so and that Britain is taking the lead.

Mr. Randall: Is the Minister satisfied that all the existing measures on by-catches are sufficient to protect commercial stocks, especially in respect of the Danes?

Mr. Gummer: I am not satisfied, and we must continue fighting to ensure that the rules are kept. All the evidence this year shows that there is much more keeping of the rules. The fact that the Danish Minister of Fisheries has been attacked by Danish fishermen for being too tough, and that the Dutch Minister is under great pressure in his House of Commons because he has been so tough on conservation, show how successful our policy is. We in Britain should be proud of it instead of, like the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), always attacking every success that Britain achieves.

Pesticides

Sir John Wells: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is being taken to control the supply and use of pesticides.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Powers to control the supply and use of pesticides are contained in part III of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 and were implemented in the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986, which came into force on 6 October.

Sir John Wells: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is great anxiety about the pesticide temir, or dinoseb, or whatever it is called, and that it has been withdrawn already in the United States? Will he update the House on what he intends to do in future about this product?

Mr. Thompson: I know of my hon. Friend's great interest in this matter because of his constituency interest in ICI and his own professional background. Today the Government have suspended all approvals that authorise


the sale, supply and use of dinoseb, dinoseb acetate, dinoseb amine binapacryl and dinoterb, pending a full review by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is one thing to make regulations on pesticides to protect the public and the countryside, but quite another to make them effective? What is he doing to advise the public and farmers on the use of pesticides so that the excellent new regulations can work?

An Hon. Member: Nothing.

Mr. Thompson: "Nothing" is not the right answer. There are 72 Ministry officers, the Health and Safety Commission, local authority officers and contractors in the trade to whom we are supplying information all the time. That information is constantly updated. With that army, we should be able to monitor the pesticide regulations.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I welcome the Government's decision, in relation to the recommendations, to reconsider the distribution of those pesticide products. Would it not be better, whenever concern is expressed abroad which leads to the withdrawal of pesticides from distribution, if that automatically triggered a re-examination of the distribution of those products on the British market?

Mr. Thompson: That is what happens. I was asked a question on this subject on 7 November last, and I can give the House a more detailed answer. The scientific sub-committee, acting on the basis that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, considered data provided by companies supplying dinoseb products, and, as a result of its recommendation, and with the agreement of the chairman and other members of the ACP, we have introduced the ban today as a matter of urgency.

Sir John Farr: What further progress has my hon. Friend made in analysing the Union Carbide chemical, aldecarb? In a reply a fortnight ago he said that he was conducting experiments into whether it should be allowed to be sold in this country, in view of the fact that, in parallel tests that have been conducted abroad, it has been found to destroy, or certainly damage, the immune system.

Mr. Thompson: We are carrying out those tests with the same urgency as we carried out those on dinoseb. I shall advise the House or write to my right hon. Friend as soon as those tests have been completed.

Mr. Home Robertson: I welcome the Government's decision to act on and control the availability of dinoseb in the light of new evidence. Dinoseb has been on the market for a long time. That must raise serious questions not only about this chemical but about others, such as 2,4,5-T and aldicarb. Has the time not come for a further review of the procedures for clearing agricultural chemicals?

Mr. Thompson: We are constantly reviewing, as I have already said twice today. This particular chemical is not dangerous to the consumer; it is dangerous to the person who applies it. We have taken this swift action because of the possible effects on female operatives. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the number of women engaged in farming and horticulture is growing, and is welcome.

Beef

Mr. Bruce: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has made progress in European negotiations for maintaining beef variable premiums for United Kingdom beef products.

Mr. Jopling: The Agriculture Council is considering proposals for reform of the beef regime, including a Communitywide premium scheme which would replace our variable beef premium. We are pressing for agreement on arrangements which give adequate and effective support to our industry.

Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge that in areas such as mine, where beef production is crucial to the rural economy, and where the range of alternatives is limited, it is vital that some equivalent support to the variable beef premium is maintained? Will he fight to maintain that level of support to maintain the viability of rural economies in areas such as mine?

Mr. Jopling: Although a number of member states remain strongly attached to intervention as the main form of support, there is a general recognition that intervention is proving too costly. There is a growing feeling of support for the introduction of a new premium on a Communitywide basis for the first time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a welcome move.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proposal put forward by the EEC to limit the premium to specialist beef producers with 50 head of cattle discriminates against the British farmer and that he will have none of it?

Mr. Jopling: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Commission's proposal that the premium should be limited to the first 50 animals on any holding is unacceptable because it would discriminate against the United Kingdom. Any new premium would be acceptable only if it did not discriminate against us.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Did the Minister propose a scheme for beef producers similar to that for our sheep producers? If not, why not?

Mr. Jopling: I should like to see our beef variable premium scheme being extended to the whole Community, but it is unpopular with other member states, which do not have the United Kingdom's administrative machinery for running such a scheme. The Commission is anxious to secure a more uniform regime, and a majority of member states prefer intervention as the main form of support. However, acceptance of a new premium Communitywide is growing.

Mr. Cockeram: Will my right hon. Friend explain to his European colleagues that the British beef variable premium scheme directly assists producers and keeps prices down for consumers, and that that must be better than piling up stocks in intervention?

Mr. Jopling: I agree with my hon. Friend, because the beef variable premium scheme gives producers direct price support, keeps consumer prices down and is a less costly and more efficient method than intervention support for beef.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister acknowledge that there are considerable difficulties in the beef sector at


present because of fluctuations in green currency valuations? Does he accept that there is universal support for the principle of a beef variable premium because it is unique in CAP terms in that it benefits both producers and consumers? Will he fight determinedly to keep that principle?

Mr. Jopling: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I am worried about the low level of beef prices at present, but, as a large farmer, he will know that beef prices are traditionally low at this time of year. Therefore, at present it is important that we match the devaluation of the Irish currency. He will know that immediately after that was accepted I made an application to the Commission in Brussels, which has at long last accepted it and put forward a formal proposal to the Council. Next week we shall fight hard to get the 6 per cent. beef green pound devaluation agreed by the Council of Ministers.

Baby Foods (Additives)

Mrs. Roe: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce new regulations on the use of additives in baby foods.

Mr. Donald Thompson: The use of additives in foods, including those specially prepared for babies and young children, is already controlled by the Food Act and regulations made under it. As part of its continual review programme the Food Advisory Committee is currently reviewing the use of additives in baby foods. When completed, the committee's report will be published.

Mrs. Roe: Does my hon. Friend recognise the considerable work being done by food retailers and the children's hospital at Great Ormond street in identifying additives with harmful effects? Does he agree that certain additives are essential for public safety to prevent risk from contaminated food?

Mr. Thompson: We believe that at present there are no additives with harmful effects, but we continually review them. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Great Ormond street hospital and retailers do a great deal to monitor what they sell and what is produced.

Forestry (Broadleaf Trees)

Mr. John Mark Taylor: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received in favour of incentives to farmers to diversify into the systematic planting of broadleaf trees.

Mr. Jopling: I have received representations from a number of organisations and individuals on the benefits of an expansion of farm woodlands. These have stressed the environmental benefits of including a broadleaved component, but have not pressed exclusively for these species.

Mr. Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friend for what I hope is an awareness of the need to encourage broadleaf woodland. When does he expect to be able to respond to the report prepared by the Nature Conservancy Council, entitled "Nature Conservation and Afforestation in Great Britain"?

Mr. Jopling: I was interested to see the report presented by the Nature Conservancy Council during the summer. However, the Government's response is a matter for my

right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I hope that my hon. Friend will table a question to my right hon. Friend on that matter.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing concern in many parts of the country at the current system of grants and fiscal incentives used by management companies to provide blanket afforestation in many upland areas, resulting in considerable damage to farming and environmental interests, as well as to tourism?

Mr. Jopling: We must remember that the reason for so much forestry today is largely due to the activities of specialist firms. My hon. Friend is especially critical of the environmental aspects, and I strongly agree that all future tree plantings must be examined to ensure that they are environmentally sympathetic.

Mr. Randall: What special arrangements would the Minister envisage being provided for tenant farmers who do not own the land?

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on one of the greatest difficulties, bearing in mind that a farmer or anyone else who plants trees does not get a return for a very long time. One of the most difficult problems that we and others are considering is how to bring the tenant farmer within the wider group of foresters.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Before my right hon. Friend becomes too attached to trees as a way of saving the rural economy, will he instead, or in addition, persuade planning departments to deal sympathetically with alternative enterprises and developments in those areas which will provide more employment at lower public cost?

Mr. Jopling: I think that the use of trees is only one of a package of ways to help the rural economy. However, I agree with my hon. Friend's point about planning. Many hon. Members and people outside the House—especially in rural areas—would like to see greater sympathy by members of planning committees to allowing non-agricultural developments in the rural countryside, provided that they are sympathetic to the environment.

Council of Agriculture Ministers

Mr. Fatchett: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress on his priorities as President of the Council of Agriculture Ministers.

Mr. Jopling: My priority as President remains the expeditious handling of the Commission's proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy, particularly in the beef and milk sectors, and the measures which contribute to the completion of the internal market.

Mr. Fatchett: Will the Secretary of State tell us what priority he will give to low pay in agriculture, especially at a time when we know that two fifths of those working in the industry are on wages at or below supplementary benefit levels, and at the same time farmers' profits have increased enormously? Is that not a scandal in an industry in which people work so hard and give so much for the benefit of this country?

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman should have visited the Smithfield show this week and talked about farmers profits increasing enormously. He will know that, in real


terms, since the middle of the previous Labour Government's term in office there has been a decline in in farmers' profits. Their profits were down by 43 per cent. last year. The hon. Gentleman would have been lynched if he had made his point at the Smithfield show.

Mr. Pollock: Does my right hon. Friend accept the need to secure a proper scheme for the future of the beef industry? May I re-echo the plea for a scheme that will not in any way have a limitation on headage payments, to allow a viable scheme to carry on and give confidence to the farming community?

Mr. Jopling: We are very conscious of the need to reform the beef sector. As my hon. Friend will have heard a few moments ago—and I am glad to endorse this once again—any limitation in the number of animals that would qualify for the new premium would be unacceptable to us.

Miss Maynard: Will the Minister make it his priority to ensure that the Government stop breaching the European social charter in relation to farm workers' pay, as two in five farm workers are paid wages below the decency threshold as detailed in the European charter? This is at a time when Lloyds bank has forecast a 50 per cent. increase in farmers' profits this year and when even the National Farmers Union has said that there will be a 20 per cent. increase in farmers' profits this year?

Mr. Jopling: If the hon. Lady will give me a pound for every percentage point increase below 56 per cent. this year I will give her a pound for every percentage point increase above that figure. As she well knows, responsibility for farm workers' wages is not mine but that of the Agricultural Wages Board.

Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at least a tithe of the huge amount spent on subsidy to encourage food production should go towards encouraging good conservation policies to protect the landscape, bearing in mind that conservation of the countryside is not incompatible with sound food production and agricultural policy?

Mr. Jopling: I agree with my hon. Friend. I refer him to a survey completed not long ago. The very large number of trees and lengths of hedgerows planted each year by farmers shows that they are the largest group of conservationists in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Blair: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 December 1986.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of the Netherlands.

Mr. Blair: As the Prime Minister had cast-iron legal grounds for stopping Pincher's book in 1981 and could not possibly have been advised that she did not, why did she deliberately allow its publication? Is it simply that when it suits her she is prepared to sacrifice the interests of national security to the interests of the Tory party?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I cannot comment on matters which are in issue in the proceedings in Australia.

Mr. Brinton: Does my right hon. Friend recall the important work done for successive Governments by Lord Rothschild? In the course of her busy day, will she consider what steps can now be taken to protect his reputation against false innuendoes and smears?

The Prime Minister: I have seen Lord Rothschild's letter, published this morning. That letter is being considered in government. I cannot add anything further at this stage.

Mr. Hattersley: That is an extraordinary answer for the Prime Minister to give on this subject. Can she not follow the precedent that she herself set on 26 March 1981 in the case of Sir Roger Hollis and respond explicitly now to Lord Rothschild's plea by making it clear that he is not, and never has been: a Soviet agent?

The Prime Minister: Lord Rothschild's letter was published this morning. I have seen it. The letter is being considered in government, as it should be, and I cannot add anything further at this stage. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would understand that.

Mr. Hattersley: I certainly understand the implications of the Prime Minister's prevarication, and I hope that she does, too. Putting aside the personal anguish that her answer is bound to cause, Lord Rothschild was the head of the central policy review staff working in Downing street for the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) when he was Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister not prepared to say here and now that Lord Rothschild was not a spy?

The Prime Minister: It is the right hon. Gentleman who is causing anguish. Lord Rothschild's letter was published this morning. I have seen it. The letter is being considered in government, and I cannot add anything further at this stage.

Mr. Hattersley: Even now, answering this question, will the right hon. Lady consider not simply the obligations of generous impulses, which she does not possess, but the damage that her answers are doing to the British Security Service? It is preposterous to continue to give the impression that we are infiltrated by moles. We are not, and the right hon. Lady ought to make that clear here and now in the case of Lord Rothschild.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing furter to add to what I have already said about Lord Rothschild. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he said about security matters. When he was asked about them, when he was a Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, he said:
It is the long-established practice of this House that the Government do not comment on matters of this kind."—[Official Report, 28 July 1976; Vol. 916, c. 626.]

Sir Ian Gilmour: I understand that the DROPS contract will shortly be awarded. Has my right hon. Friend been made aware that the procurement process in this case has been a continuing scandal, not only on the part of the Ministry of Defence, but on the part of one of the competitors? Will my right hon. Friend insist on the Ministry of Defence setting up an immediate independent inquiry into this very murky affair?

The Prime Minister: I have heard what my right hon. Friend says, and I will, of course, consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister tell us when she first became aware that Sir Robert Armstrong's evidence was incorrect, and when she instructed him to correct it?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, and as the Attorney-General repeated on Monday, the Government are plaintiffs in this case and we are not able to comment upon matters before the court.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us share her view that we must build one nation? Will she square that with what happened yesterday, when Birmingham lost £31 million of its grant? Bearing in mind the deprivations in Birmingham and the prosperity in the south, how does that help to build one nation?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend speaks about the rates details published yesterday. As he is aware, a new consultation paper has been published. I am aware that it will be greeted with approval in some parts of the House and with disapproval in other parts. I am afraid that that is inevitable in view of the way in which the formula works. That is one reason why we shall have to change the whole way in which that formula works. I understand my hon. Friend's feelings.

Mr. Terry Lewis: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lewis: In the court in Sydney Sir Robert Armstrong said that a Committee of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, decided not to ban the Chapman Pincher book. When did that book come into the possession of the right hon. Lady?

The Prime Minister: I remind the hon. Gentleman of the answer given by the Attorney-General on Monday, when he said:
So far as the proceedings in Sydney are concerned, I must remind the House that I am the plaintiff and therefore cannot comment on anything which is in issue before the court. Although, under the rules of the House, judicial proceedings abroad are not subject to the sub judice rule, I have to be careful to avoid the risk of prejudicing the case or at the worst being in contempt of court in Sydney. It inevitably follows the Government are handicapped in respect of some of the allegations being bandied about."—[Official Report, 1 December 1986; Vol 106, c.415.]

Mr. Tim Smith: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Smith: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the extra-parliamentary pressure that is being applied to certain Members of Parliament? Is she aware

that Arthur Scargill has demanded the expulsion from the Labour party of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon)? Will she refer that matter to the Lord Privy Seal as a possible breach of parliamentary privilege? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should listen to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. He asked the Prime Minister whether she would refer the matter to the Lord Privy Seal.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will have heard what my hon. Friend said and will have taken note of it. I believe that it is a matter purely for the House, not for me.

Mr. John David Taylor: As the Prime Minister missed out last year on her annual pre-Christmas visit to Northern Ireland, and as she has not been to Northern Ireland since her rather strange visit to Hillsborough on 15 November 1985, does she propose to resume her pre-Christmas visits by going to Northern Ireland this year?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may be wise to ask that question; it would be most unwise for me to answer it.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend consider later today the excellent news that the Labour party has decided to sell shares in one of its loss-making publications and that the National Union of Mineworkers has decided to contract out cleaning at its Sheffield headquarters? Does that not prove that it is never too late to learn?

The Prime Minister: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming those latest converts to the efficiency which comes from competition.

Mr. Steel: Did the Prime Minister know that arms sales to Iran were being arranged through London? If she did know, was that not contrary to the publicly declared policy of the Government; and, if she did not know, was not her friend, President Reagan, not keeping her in the dark?

The Prime Minister: The Government have not received evidence of illegal exports of defence equipment from Britain. If the right hon. Gentleman has such evidence, he should make it available. The United States Government did not inform us about their arms consignments to Iran. British policy on arms sales to Iran and Iraq is one of the strictest in Europe and is rigidly enforced, at substantial cost to British industry. That policy has been maintained scrupulously and consistently.

Mr. Rhodes James: Is my right hon. Friend aware—I am sure that she is—that Lord Rothschild is an eminent constituent of mine, that he is a distinguished public servant, and that his letter requires immediate and urgent attention?

The Prime Minister: I cannot add to what I have said. I had hoped that the House would understand that. I cannot add to it at this stage.

Cabinet Secretary

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if she will separate the position of Cabinet Secretary from that of Head of the Civil Service; and if she will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: Six years before Sydney, was Sir Robert Armstrong acting in his capacity as Head of the Civil Service, or in his capacity as Cabinet Secretary, when he participated in the decision to withhold from the Attorney-General knowledge of how Chapman Pincher's book was obtained or purloined?

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Attorney-General's answer on Monday 1 December when he said:
So far as the proceedings in Sydney are concerned, I must remind the House that I am the plaintiff and therefore cannot comment on anything which is in issue before the court.
He went on:
I have to be careful to avoid the risk of prejudicing the case or at the worst being in contempt of court in Sydney."—[Official Report, 1 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 415.]

Mr. Latham: Has not Sir Robert Armstrong, acting in either of his official capacities, been trying to assert the essential doctrine that former British security personnel have an overriding duty to keep their mouths shut?

The Prime Minister: I cannot add anything to what I have already said.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us on this side would be glad if she would suspend forthwith her contacts with the Leader of the Opposition on matters of security, because none of us believes a word that she says about that or anything else?

The Prime Minister: As far as this side of the House is concerned, the normal courtesies will continue to be observed.

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thurnham: In view of the benefits that polytechnics bring to local industry, will my right hon. Friend, during her busy day, find time to consider the case for an additional polytechnic in the north-west and the additional jobs that would bring?

The Prime Minister: I am aware that the National Advisory Board is meeting today, and I will pass on my hon. Friend's comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This arises out of Question Time this afternoon.
As you appreciate, Mr. Speaker, questions, in terms of admissibility, are very much guided by precedent. We have had a rather confusing exchange this afternoon during which the Prime Minister has repeated that, in her opinion, in the case of Rothschild, she cannot comment because of the precedent relating to security. Conversely, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has quoted the precedent set by

the Prime Minister on 26 March 1981, when she made a statement to the House regarding Hollis. Which precedent applies in the case of Rothschild? Who decides which applies, or is it utterly a matter for the Prime Minister to choose as suits her individual whim?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot be responsible for the answers that are given. It is not a matter for me.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter for you arising out of Question Time and the events in Australia.
I understand that the Leader of the Opposition—I am sorry that he is not here at the moment—wrote to you at some length about the affaire téléphonique that he has had with various succulent sources in Australia. I believe that this affair culminated—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot know what letters are sent to me anyway, but I must tell him that the Leader of the Opposition certainly did not write to me about that matter. He asked if he could issue his letter to me as a press release. I dealt with this the other day. I replied that it was entirely in order for him to issue that letter as a press release.

Mr. Faulds: Further to the earlier point of order Mr. Speaker. As you will know more than most, the conduct of this House is based on precedent, and you are the guardian of that behaviour. Would it not be advisable for you to make some utterance on whether the Prime Minister is, at will, entitled to slough off these earlier practices?

Mr. Speaker: A moment ago I said that these are not matters for me. Order in this House is essential. We have freedom of speech here, and we should conduct ourselves with discretion in a parliamentary fashion.

Mr. Home-Robertson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have been hearing a lot from across the Atlantic about the fifth amendment. Is it in order for the Prime Minister to keep refusing to answer questions on the ground that they are likely to incriminate her?

Mr. Speaker: I am not Tip O'Neill.

Mr. Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that you have just remarked that the business of the House depends on good order, on hon. Members being able to hear what other hon. Members are saying and that that causes you some difficulties, and as recently there have been recurring instances of the Prime Minister refusing to answer questions, will you look into the possibility of allowing Ministers, such as the Prime Minister, to plead the fifth amendment? That would save a lot of time.

Business of the House

Mr. Roy Hattersley: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the Business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes. Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 DECEMBER— Second Reading of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill.
Afterwards there will be a debate on EC documents on aid to shipbuilding. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the British Shipbuilders Borrowing Powers (Increase of Limit) Order.
TUESDAY 9 DECEMBER — Second Reading of the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill.
There will be a debate on a motion to take note of EC Document 8705/86 on food aid policy and management.
Afterwards there will be a debate on EC documents relating to air transport. Details will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 10 DECEMBER—Remaining stages of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill.
At Ten o'clock the House will be asked to agree the Civil and Defence Votes on Account and the Winter Supplementary Estimates.
THURSDAY 11 DECEMBER — Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
Motion on the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 3) Order.
FRIDAY 12 DECEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 15 DECEMBER—Until seven o'clock, Private Members' motions.
Motion for the Christmas Adjournment.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Mr. Speaker, the House will wish to know that it will be proposed that, subject to the progress of business, the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Friday 19 December, until Monday 12 January.

Monday 8 December

Debate on Aid to Shipbuilding

Relevant European Documents:

(a) 9470/86
Aid to Shipbuilding


9470/1/86

Tuesday 9 December

Debate on Food Aid

Relevant European Documents:

(b) 8705/86
Food aid policy


+COR 1

Debate on Air Transport

Relevant European Documents:

(c) 5938/84
Air Transport policy


(d) 7932/1/86
Community air transport policy


(e) 8324/86
Community air transport policy


(f) 8109/86
Inter-regional air services


(g) 9132/86
Inter-regional air services

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 21-xxvii (1985–86) para 3
(b) HC 21-xxvii (1985–86) para 1 and HC 22-ii (1986–87) para 2

(c) HC 18-xxvii (1983–84) para 9 and HC 5-xxi (1984–85) para 1
(d) HC 21-xxviii (1985–86) para 4
(e) HC 21-xxviii (1985–86) para 4
(f) HC 21-xxviii (1985–86) para 3
(g) HC 21-xxviii (1985–86) para 3]

Mr. Hattersley: I ask the Leader of the House two specific questions about next week. He will recall that a private notice question was recently asked concerning the Government's manipulation of the trade figures. The House was assured that the figures published on the day of the private notice question were accurate. We now know from the information available today that that was not so. I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that the Minister in question has a duty to return to the House next week to clarify the position and correct the errors he made when answering the private notice question.
Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government have already made up their mind to carry the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill through all its stages in three sittings of the House and have already promised to deliver it to the House of Lords immediately after Christmas? Does that not confirm the view of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) that, given a large majority, the Prime Minister would certainly abuse it?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly look into the right hon. Gentleman's first point, with which I am not as familiar as he obviously is, and refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman's second point is a matter of great substance. The House will understand the urgency in coming to a decision on these matters. With that in mind, I have tabled a motion which, if passed today, will enable amendments to be tabled to the Bill before Second Reading. I hope that the arrangements which I have outlined will prove to be helpful to the House. I note the right hon. Gentleman's point. I shall arrange for the matter to be considered further through the usual channels to ascertain whether a more acceptable day for the remaining stages can be found. We shall have to judge progress.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend find time to allow the House to discuss the issue of the compulsory attendance of pupils at the teaching of Punjabi in a number of schools in the west midlands? In particular, will he provide such an opportunity for those who wish to express doubts on behalf of the parents of children at the Colton Hills School in my constituency, who find that, against their wishes and against the promises in the prospectus, they are obliged to attend lessons in Punjabi?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has raised a valid point which could have wider application in the future. Therefore, I would like to draw his attention to the opportunity that would be presented by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill, when he might make the matters more extensible to the House.

Mr. David Alton: Is the Leader of the House aware that it is now nearly a year since the Leader of the Liberal party wrote to the Lord Chancellor asking that the cases against the 47 Liverpool


councillors facing disqualification should be proceeded with with the greatest expedition? Is he further aware that the cases have now been put back to 26 January and the council is facing a potential 60 per cent. rates increase and a deficit of perhaps as much as £50 million at the beginning of the next financial year? Will he arrange for an urgent statement to be made to the House to demonstrate that there is no political manipulation of the judicial process, that the case will be heard as quickly as possible and that urgent assistance will be given to Liverpool in facing the crisis?

Mr. Biffen: Any innuendo that there was political manipulation of the judicial process would be greatly resented. Of course, I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 213 in my name and the names of hon. Members on both sides of the House regarding the proposed takeover of Pilkingtons by the financial conglomerate BRT?
[That this House deplores BRT's bid for Pilkingtons, a world leader in its own industry; and calls upon the Government to discourage the takeover of British firms with proven technical commitments and long-term research and development programmes by amorphous conglomerates interested primarily in short-term profits.]
In view of mounting concern that the long-term interests of advanced British industry are being subjected to the short-term requirements of the City of London financial institutions, will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on that and related subjects?

Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend has said. He gives a view upon it, but he will appreciate that I am unable to give a view, not least because it is at present before the Office of Fair Trading.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Since the Secretary of State for Defence has refused to come to the House today to make a statement on decisions affecting the royal dockyards, will the Leader of the House ensure an early debate on the threat to 1,300 jobs at Rosyth, caused by decisions slipped out in Scotland today? Will he ensure that the Secretary of State, in his rush to privatise, does not fail to consult the work force as he promised only a few days ago to do?

Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has acquainted the House with his proposals in a perfectly familiar way. However, I shall draw the observations of the hon. Gentleman to his attention. The hon. Gentleman, in his turn, will note from the business I have announced that there are plenty of opportunities for him to raise the subject.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the rise in the Government's popularity may be dated from the appointment of our hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)? Without tempting my right hon. Friend to elucidate on the distinction between post hoc and propter hoc, can we have an early debate on early-day motions 257 and 281?
[That this House calls on the honourable Member for South Derbyshire, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Health and Social Security to make a statement about the interests of her relatives in Arthur

Andersen &amp; Co. a company which gains financially from contracts entered into by the Department of Health and Social Security itself and by regional health authorities.]
[That this House notes with dismay the attempt by the honourable Member for Cynon Valley to impugn the reputation of the honourable Member for South Derbyshire, insinuating that her spouse and a relative of his used her office to influence the award of contracts to their firms, and speculates whether the remoteness of the association would have been worthy of comment had the honourable Member not been female; and further suggests that this kind of implication with its sexist undertones does nothing to advance the interest of politically minded women who aspire to membership of this House and who are related to or associated with successful men of commerce.]
We should have a debate so that the attack on our hon. Friend through her husband's employment may be fully exposed and thoroughly repudiated.

Mr. Biffen: I share the distaste expressed by my hon. Friend and, what is more, I think that it is downright sexist. If the hon. Member concerned had been male, it would have passed unnoticed.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Has the Leader of the House—he obviously has—had an opportunity to look at early-day motions 257 and 258?
[That this House calls on the hon. Member for South Derbyshire, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Health and Social Security to make a statement about the interests of her relatives in Arthur Andersen and Co. a company which gains financially from contracts entered into by the Department of Health and Social Security itself and by regional health authorities.]
[That this House calls on the Secretary of Slate for Social Services to set up an independent inquiry into the decision of the Wessex Regional Health Authority to award a £29 million computer contract to Arthur Andersen and Co., a consortium consisting of the accountants Arthur Andersen, IBM, and Technicom; calls on the Wessex Regional Health Authority to explain how they came to award this contract to a consortium which includes Arthur Andersen, when Arthur Andersen were the consultants advising the regional health authority on whom the contract should be awarded to; notes that Mr. Raymond Currie, is, according to the Institute of Chartered Accountants, a partner in Arthur Andersen, in charge of audit training; further notes that Mr. Brian Currie, the brother of Mr. Raymond Currie, is the senior partner in charge of the public service contracts division of Arthur Andersen and Co. the firm which was awarded this contract; is concerned that in the bidding for this contract Arthur Andersen and Co. came in late and after International Computers Limited; and that the same process seems to be taking place in East Anglia; and finally calls on the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a statement on allegations that the Department of Health and Social Security have made substantial payments to Arthur Andersen and Co. for work that has not been carried out or completed and that an internal investigation into these matters is now going on.]
Does he believe that the time has come to review the code of conduct for Ministers so that they have to register their close relatives who might benefit financially from contracts entered into by their Departments in the Register of Members's interests?

Mr. Biffen: I do not believe for one moment that there is any conflict of interest in this case and I believe that the House demeans itself when—

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman does not know that.

Mr. Biffen: I certainly would not take guidance from the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). The hon. Member for Fife, Central is on the Select Committee on Members' Interests. If it is a matter of such concern, the Committee will consider it.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: As a year has elapsed since the conclusion of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, should the House not have an opportunity to debate the dangerous and disquieting developments that have taken place since it was signed?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend, who has a very clear record of consistency in his attitude to these matters, might consider raising the matter during the proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill. That would certainly be an occasion for it to be raised.

Mr. David Steel: The answer of the Leader of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) was utterly unsatisfactory. Is he aware that it is nearly a year since I had correspondence with the Lord Chancellor about the need, in the public interest, to deal with the cases against the 47 councillors in Liverpool? The Government give the impression that they are prepared to allow the city to slide into financial chaos rather than to face the 47 by-elections because there would be nothing in it for them.

Mr. Biffen: That is not a particularly worthy comment, in the context of the earlier remarks about political interference with the judicial process. [Interruption.] Oh, yes.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Yes, he did say that.

Mr. Biffen: I hear that endorsement, but I shall stand on my own observations. I have said that I shall refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. Surely that is a reasonable and forthcoming response.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that early-day motions are now a much debased currency? Would it not be good if the rules governing them could be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure?

Mr. Biffen: As my hon. Friend knows, the terms under which the House established the Select Committee on Procedure were such that the Committee itself could decide what to consider. I am sure that the Chairman of the Committee will have noted my hon. Friend's remarks, but I shall certainly draw them to his attention, anyway.

Mr. Skinner: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 105?
[That this House is very concerned at the increase in the number of absent landlords and property companies that have taken over many of the estates previously owned by the National Coal Board; further condemns those property companies who are using the courts to a far greater extent to either evict families or, in many cases, cause substantial court costs to be added onto the rent thus putting families into further arrears; calls upon the agents who act on behalf

of the property companies to reveal to councillors and other tenants' representatives the names and addresses of the real owners, including those companies based outside the United Kingdom; and, finally, calls for a public inquiry into the way in which the National Coal Board disposed of these houses and to establish whether any tendering took place before sale.]
It relates to the fact that the Coal Board has been selling off housing in the coalfields at less than market value. In one instance, it sold them for £3,000 for each dwelling. Most of the houses were semi-detached. According to a valuer, they were sold for less than the value of the ground upon which they stood. One property owner made a profit of £3,000 on each house by this deal. It did not go out to open tender.
Will the Leader of the House join those hon. Members who have signed the early-day motion and ensure that there is a public inquiry into this housing scandal? While he is about it, will he tell his hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) that the National Coal Board owns the property in which the National Union of Mineworkers has one floor—in an 11-floor building—and that it has played no part whatsoever in any cleaning contract at any time?

Mr. Biffen: I think that we all know grateful tenants when we see them. I have not given the early-day motion to which the hon. Gentleman refers the close attention that perhaps I should, but he will have every opportunity to raise the matter either on the motion for the Christmas Adjournment or on the Consolidated Fund Bill debate that will follow.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: The Leader of the House is aware that today, during Prime Minister's Questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) drew to the Prime Minister's attention the outrageous attack by the president of the National Union of Mineworkers on two Members of this House. The Leader of the House will know that it is not for hon. Members on this side of the House to seek to defend Labour Members of Parliament, but it seemed to me to be an attack on the integrity and the duties, in the wider sense, of hon. Members. Will he find some time in the very near future for the House to debate such attacks on hon. Members?

Mr. Biffen: It is a most interesting proposition. My hon. Friend will be able to pursue that point in the debate upon the Consolidated Fund Bill. If, of course, hon. Members feel that this is a breach of privilege, there is a recognised procedure to be followed.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: May I assure the Leader of the House that, although it is some time since he was last pressed on the establishment of an Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier, there is none the less a considerable weight of feeling behind this proposal, both here and in Dublin. Is it not time that the Government stopped equivocating, or that the Leader of the House stopped equivocating, and gave the House a chance to debate the measure so that the Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier can be started?

Mr. Biffen: I suppose that, cautiously, I was waiting for a fairly spontaneous and unanimous manifestation of support for that idea—[Interruption.] Oh, yes. I should have thought that there is enough experience of Irish


affairs to make one fairly cautious about initiatives. If the hon. Gentleman wishes the matter to be raised on the Floor of the House, this coming week is ideal from his point of view.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Will my right hon. Friend consider setting up this week an all-party committee of senior and experienced Privy Councillors with a view to their formulating a code of conduct compatible with national interests for the Leader of the Opposition, who does not seem to be able to work one out for himself? Does my right hon. Friend consider that it would be fair to exclude him from security briefings until he has had the opportunity of mending his ways?

Mr. Biffen: If the committee were to be brand new with very little working experience, its first task would be a major one. Perhaps, in the circumstances, this is something which will solve itself.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to see early-day motions 275 and 276 concerning the training of El Salvadorean army officers by the British Army and the hosting of a conference in London this weekend about Contra terrorism in Nicaragua?
[That this House deplores the decision of Her Majesty's Government to offer training facilities to officers of the El Salvador army; considers the record of the armed forces in El Salvador to be one of the most appalling violations of human rights and brutality; believes that the poverty of the people of El Salvador is due to high military spending; and therefore believes that the decision of the British Government to give aid to the army of El Salvador is a reflection of their policy of obedience to the United States policy towards the region.]
[That this House is appalled at the activities of the Contras in murdering and maiming people as part of their United States inspired plan to return Nicaragua to the servitude of the days of the Samoza dictatorship; and therefore demands that the British Government ban Contra organisation and funding in Britain and resume aid to the government of Nicaragua.]
In the circumstances, does not the House need a statement from the Foreign Secretary on Britain's relations with those two countries and the apparent approval that the British Government give to terrorism in Nicaragua by allowing the Contras to organise freely in this country?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot accept or agree with the hon. Gentleman's observations in their entirety—he makes a point that he raised with me recently—but I shall certainly refer his comments to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend investigate today and report to the House next week on what he can do to enable the people of this country to see their Parliament more easily? Is he aware that there are the most shocking queues for tours to go round the House? At 11.45 am today there was an absolutely enormous queue, and it is high time we did something about it.

Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says. Perhaps he will allow me to point ut that there is a question for oral answer on that point on Monday.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to consider early-day motion 165 concerning the London Regional Transport redundancies? 
[That this House deplores the decision of the Board of London Regional Transport to close a major part of its builders organisation involving the loss of around 470 jobs; and calls on the London Regional Transport Board to reverse this decision immediately and to enter into negotiations with the unions representing the London Regional Transport Builders workforce on means of improving the business prospects of London Regional Transport Builders which safeguard the employment prospects of London Regional Transport employees.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the real concern in London about the further loss of 470 jobs, which is implicit in London Regional Transport's proposals? Will he urge his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House and make a statement at the earliest opportunity, and allow for a full debate on this important subject?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman's points are essentially for London Regional Transport. I shall of course draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to the point that he has made.

Sir John Farr: My right hon. Friend is always very anxious to correct injustices. May I draw his attention to the case of the six people who were imprisoned for the bombings in Birmingham 10 years ago? Since then, in recent days, some very material new evidence has come forward in the form of new witnesses and new forensic evidence. Can my right hon. Friend persuade our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make an early statement next week, or give the House an opportunity to have a short debate on the matter, so that what may be an injustice can be removed which none of us would like to see persevered with?

Mr. Biffen: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is clearly aware of the points made by my hon. Friend, but I shall most certainly draw his attention to the point that my hon. Friend has just made on this matter.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Leader of the House aware that the second late-night debate next Tuesday on EEC air travel is on five sets of European regulations and five Government memoranda on which the Select Committee on European Legislation has made seven separate reports, thus making 17 documents in all? Is he further aware that the terms of reference of the EEC Scrutiny Committee do not permit it to consolidate its seven reports into one? Will the Leader of the House bear that in mind when he consults his right hon. Friends on their response to the second special report of that Committee?

Mr. Biffen: Most certainly.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend consider my amendment to early-day motion 91? It calls for the Royal Air Force to be equipped with the most effective airborne early warning control system available to defend Britain. In that regard, will he consider the establishment of a defence equipment appropriation Sub-Committee to the Select Committee on Defence, as the most key defence issues these days seem to


be helicopters, airborne early warning, and so on, which require a degree of technical expertise and specialist information that can only be transmitted to the House through such a body?

Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says, but I am not sure that an initiative on my part is necessary to secure that end.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: As a cultured creature, the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, is he not, that the National Portrait Gallery is in desperate need of greater space to exhibit its most marvellous collection? Is he aware, in that context, that the Government have done nothing at all to ensure that the National Portrait Gallery should get the site of the neighbouring dental hospital, and that if it does not move quickly, the site will go and be lost to the National Portrait Gallery?

Mr. Biffen: I understand that, thanks to the good offices of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), there will be an Adjournment debate on the arts on 11 December. With a little fraternal co-operation between the two hon. Members, the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) could snatch two or three minutes from that debate.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am deeply grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me. The Leader of the House will agree that yesterday's debate on rum goings-on at MI5 was exceedingly interesting, and he played a not inauspicious part in it, but would it not have been interesting if the rest of the country could have watched it on their televisions? When will there be an early opportunity to debate a resolution on the televising of the Houses of Parliament, and in particular of this House? The whole country could then enjoy the Prime Minister's twice-weekly discomfort and listen to the Opposition's excellent speeches.

Mr. Biffen: I shall try to respond in a narrow and desiccated fashion rather than in the manner in which that question was put. In the concluding stages of this Parliament, it would be wholly unrealistic to try to take such a major decision.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate on the sale and disposal of council houses? One million pople have by now been wise enough to buy their council houses. Most generous discounts are available, particularly for those wishing to buy council flats, but unfortunately many local authorities, including Leicester, are unwilling to make those discounts available, even though they could make us an even greater property-owning society.

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that there is interest throughout the House in the prospect of a debate on housing. However, judging by the business that I have just announced, private Members may have an opportunity to raise that subject. To that end, I wish my hon. Friend well.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: May we have a debate on the Government's continuing commitment to the green belt, and in particular on the disgraceful application by the Prudential Insurance Company to construct a huge urban complex on 500 acres of a green field site in my constituency?

Mr. Biffen: It would not in any sense be appropriate for me to comment on the circumstances that have prompted my hon. Friend's question, but I shall certainly refer his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Greville Janner: May I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) that there should be a debate on housing, specifically in Leicester—not so that he can continue his silly, mindless blackguarding of that excellent city council but so that attention can be drawn to the needs of the 10,000 people waiting to be properly housed, and prevented from being housed by the Government's refusal to allow sufficient funds for people to have the housing that they so greatly need?

Mr. Biffen: The calm and measured way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) requested that debate shows his confidence about the next general election, while the hon. and learned Gentleman's frenetic and feverish response shows his anxiety in that regard.

Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. Friend will be aware that for the past two and half years I have been asking the Government to take action to improve the A1 north of Rotherham, and to bring it up to motorway status. Unless that is done, the north-east of England will continue to be deprived more than any other region in the country. May I tell my right hon. Friend that I have had a letter from the Minister in which he refuses categorically to consider the upgrading for which I have asked? The House deserves the opportunity to debate the subject, as the north-east is not getting its fair share of road transport provision.

Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says and I realise the anguish that the news must have produced within him. He will understand that the motion for the Christmas Adjournment and the proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill are almost tailormade to provide the opportunity for him to draw attention to the matters which he has raised this afternoon.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Next week, some hon. Members from both sides of the House who are more lucky at bingo than I am will be presenting their ballot Bills. As the Leader of the House will know, this raises the starting gate for the ten-minute rule procedure. Will he take urgent action to stop the nonsense of hon. Members arriving here at 3 o'clock in the morning with their thermos flasks and sandwiches to await the 10 o'clock getaway so that they can be first in the queue for time on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Biffen: I do not think that I have any authority to stop what I believe are bipartisan practices.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early statement on the miserable decision of the Atlas Express Company to close its Perivale branch, with a loss of work for some of my constituents? Could we have a statement on the redundancy terms that they will be offered in the light of the company not having made anything known on this subject? Could we have also a statement on what the length of notice should be, the company having been entirely unforthcoming to the work force?

Mr. Biffen: I judge from my hon. Friend's remarks that the matters which he wishes to raise fall within the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, and I shall refer them to him.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 155, which was tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and myself?
[That this House calls on the Prime Minister to state whether the security services ever carried out an investigation into suspicions, which surfaced at the time and of which Lord Rothschild was aware, that he was a Soviet spy and the fifth man.]
The right hon. Gentleman will see that in the motion we ask for the Prime Minister to come before the House to make a statement refuting allegations that have been made against Lord Rothschild, and to deal with innuendos which have been circulating over the past five years about his activities.
Is it not true that, if the Prime Minister had made a statement in reply to the motion tabled by my hon. Friends and myself, Lord Rothschild would never have been embarrassed in the way that he has? Is it not strange that it is only today, after the intervention of Lord Rothschild in a letter to the Daily Telegraph, that the Prime Minister has been dragged to the Dispatch Box? Yet even now she refuses to make the statement that my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, South and Shoreditch and for Bolsover and myself demanded of her two weeks ago. Will she now make a full statement at the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Biffen: The remarks made about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by the hon. Gentleman, and the tone and terms in which they are made, tell the House more about him than they do about any other matter.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read Monday's Hansard, which contains the report of a debate that took place on the EEC dairy industry? If he has done so, he will have noted that a number of hon. Members who wished to

participate in a debate on an important subject were unable to do so. Is there any chance of him finding some time in the near future for a further debate to take place on this important issue?

Mr. Biffen: In this imperfect world I think that my hon. Friend will do best to vest his interests and ambitions in the proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. John Maxton: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is considerable speculation that the Government will make an announcement imminently in the form of a statement to the House on prescribing needles and syringes for drug addicts as part of their programme in their fight against AIDS? Given the public opposition expressed to this proposal by the Scottish Office Minister who has responsibilities for health matters, may I have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that if a statement is made there will be a separate statement from the Scottish Office Minister?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot confirm the hon. Gentleman's speculation, but I shall draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to the interest that he has shown in a statement being made.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, notwithstanding last Tuesday's Supply day it would be illuminating for the House to have a further debate on insider dealing? It has become apparent that it is the attitude of the Leader of the Labour party and his staff, by colluding with Mr. Turnbull in Australia, that they believe only in dealing, quite rightly, with insider trading in the City and not with that which involves the secrets and security of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says, but I shall confine myself to the narrower issue of whether we can have a further debate on insider trading. I am sure that it is a topic that could be considered in the Christmas Adjournment debate or in the proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I must tell my hon. Friend that I do not believe that there is any prospect of an early debate in Government time on this subject, important though it be.

Consolidated Fund Bill

Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment that will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Monday 15 December. Members should submit their subjects to my office not later than 9 am on Thursday 11 December. A list showing the subjects and the times will be published later that day. Normally the time allotted will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise a discretion to allow one or two debates rather more time, up to a maximum of three hours. Where identical or similar subjects have been submitted by different Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will appear on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.

Points of Order

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to apologise for raising this matter, but I did not hear your answer to my earlier point of order. We are not under the same pressure now, however. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to make a statement on Friday. He could not do that and he wrote a letter to you. It appears that it was a letter to you, because at the end of it he asked for your permission to circulate it elsewhere. As the Leader of the Opposition is writing to you and is in correspondence with you, Mr. Speaker, is it proper to ask you questions about that correspondence?

Mr. Speaker: I have dealt with this, and I did so the other day as well. There is no mystery about this matter. The Leader of the Opposition wrote to me and I replied to him by telephone. I spoke to him on the telephone to say that there was no reason why he should not issue in the form of a press release the letter which he had written to me. No hon. Member should send to the press letters that he has written to Mr. Speaker any more than Mr. Speaker would send the press copies of his replies. Every hon. Member has the right to issue a press statement if he so wishes, and most hon. Members do.

Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What can arise on it?

Mr. Marlow: My further point of order concerns telecommunications from the House, Mr. Speaker. Can you say what phone calls there have been from the House to Australia, when they ceased—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot do that. That is an entirely different matter and not one for which I have responsibility.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to something that was said by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and reported in Hansard on 28 November, when he made an unpleasant comment about Miss Helene Hayman, who is an ex-Member. She has written to the hon. Gentleman asking him to apologise. He made a wounding statement and got the name of the person concerned wrong as well. The hon. Gentleman is known for his rather aggressive stand in this place. He has referred to me—this has been reported in Hansard—as a worm and I have referred to him—it is reported—as a witless moron. There is no love lost between us. I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that an ex-Member of this place is entitled to an apology from the hon. Gentleman, and I invite him to withdraw.

Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you are aware of this situation. It is correct that I used the wrong name, and I apologise to the lady in question for using the wrong name. I think that you are aware that I have apologised for that, Mr. Speaker. My remark was based on wrong information. When Opposition Members make accusations against others without foundation, I wish that they too would have the guts and the grace to apologise to the House.

Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that many Back Benchers were pleased at the introduction of the ten minute rule. It enables more hon. Members to speak. But will you examine the length of debating time taken by Members on the Front Benches? Recently, we had a three-hour debate, over two hours of which were taken up by speakers from the Front Bench. It left little or no time for Back-Bench Members.

Mr. Speaker: The whole House is concerned about this matter. We proceed here by voluntary disciplines. I have no authority to limit the length of speeches made by Members on the Front Bench. It is a matter of sensitivity in a three-hour debate. We should all tune our speeches to the number of other hon. Members who may wish to speak. I have no control over it at the moment.

Mr. Michael Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You helped the House a week or so ago on the subject of early-day motions. You said that, if the Procedure Committee were to examine the matter, you would be pleased to give evidence. Since then, the motions appearing on the Order Paper that have been referred to today make insinuations against an hon. Member. It is intolerable that this should take place. It should be within your powers to state that motions of that kind, if they appear on the Order Paper, should be debated forthwith, so that hon. Members who have put these motions on the Order Paper can tell the House what they have in mind.

Mr. Speaker: The only way in which it is possible to criticise an hon. Member is by way of motion. I am not certain that I can do anything about that at this time. It is true that the Procedure Committee is looking into this matter. No doubt it will bring forward its report, which will be considered by the House. If the rules are then changed, of course I shall apply them.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Sheep and Goats (Removal to Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Durant.]

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put,
That, in the course of its consideration of the matter of Agriculture and Fishing in Scotland, the Scottish Grand Committee may meet in Edinburgh on Monday 8th December at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Cope.]

Not fewer than twenty Members having risen in their places and signified their objection thereto, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Scottish Grand Committee)

Orders of the Day — Advance Petroleum Revenue Tax Bill

Considered in Committee

[Mr. ERNEST ARMSTRONG in the Chair]

Clause 1

REPAYMENT OF APRT WHERE NET PROFIT PERIOD NOT YET REACHED

Mr. Bryan Gould: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 7, leave out from beginning to 'who' in line 10.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 2, in page 1, leave out lines 14 to 16.
No. 4, in page 3, line 1, leave out schedule.

Mr. Gould: As my hon. Friends and I made clear on Second Reading, we support the general purpose of the Bill, although we made it equally clear that there may be some perhaps not minor but technical matters on which we should like some further elucidation. This group of amendments is designed to secure precisely that elucidation. We are happy that whatever help may be available should be targeted as accurately as possible to those who need it. I pass over for the time being the matter of how much help might be available, because I shall ask the Minister about it later.
On the assumption that we are dealing with a finite sum—most people, including the Government, assume that it is likely to amount to £310 million—it is important and desirable that it is directed to those smaller companies that need help rather more obviously and immediately than larger oil companies. I do not mean to suggest that we can take the larger companies for granted, but in the present climate they are better able to look after themselves. Nothing in the Bill—indeed, nothing that is practicable in terms of a tax regime—will make much difference to the immediate level of oil production from the North sea. Nor do I believe—the Minister went some way towards accepting the point on Second Reading—that anything in the Bill will do very much to stimulate the exploration and development that is sorely needed by the Scottish offshore industry.
The point that the Minister made and which we, at least in substance, accept is that there is a case in equity for doing something for smaller companies which, when oil prices were high, found themselves, by virtue of the advance petroleum revenue tax, making a forced interest-free loan to the Government. Now that oil prices have fallen, they find themselves with that loan still outstanding, and still some time to wait before it is to be repaid. Because of the lower oil price, some of them at any rate presumably find that they have cash flow difficulties.
If the basis of this measure is fairness, equity and justice as between the Government and the oil companies, it also follows that some attempt should be made to do justice as between some of those companies that might notionally expect to fall within the group that would be helped by this


measure. I do not say for a moment that the Government have been blind to that consideration. They did what they could in what is inevitably a blunt and crude way to identify the companies that deserve this help.
It would be unfortunate if the outcome were that some fields and companies are to be judged by criteria that are inappropriate for the purpose and find themselves excluded, whereas other companies in a similar situation, by virtue of the vagaries of the application of the criteria, find that they benefit. The Government have chosen to use as their criterion for winnowing out those who qualify for help and those who do not whether or not payback has been reached by a certain date—that is, by 1 July of this year. Presumably, the thinking is that, in the case of a field in regard to which payback has been reached, almost by definition it should mean that the companies with interests in that field ought to have overcome, for the time being, their cash flow problems because the field ought to generate sufficient income to enable them to overcome any short-term problems.
That rough and ready measure—that criterion—seems to work, at least in most cases. In other words, virtually all the fields in which there is still a substantial amount of unrelieved APRT will meet the criterion that the Government have singled out. Companies such as Britoil and Enterprise Oil will benefit as a consequence, and that is to be welcomed.
I am sure that the Minister is well aware, as indeed we all are, that there appears to be one exception. That is the point to which the amendment is directed, and we hope that it will enable the Minister to elucidate. The one field that appears to fall outside the criteria contained in the Bill is the Maureen field. In that field, there is still a large amount of unrelieved APRT, but no relief can be offered under the Bill because payback was reached before 1 July 1986. It was reached in various parts of the field, and in respect of varying interests in the field, some time towards the end of 1985 and, in some cases, early 1986.
That means that, whereas some companies such as Britoil and Enterprise benefit from the Bill, other companies with interests in Maureen do not. They are companies such as Phillips and Petrofina. It is estimated that Petrofina may be owed £38 million of APRT and that Phillips may be owed perhaps £45 million. I hasten to say that these are estimates. We do not know the details of the accounts of these companies. Other small, independent British companies have interests in the Maureen field but are excluded from help simply by virtue of the payback criterion. It is not my purpose to act in any sense as a spokesperson for any of these companies, but there seems to be an anomaly. It is curious. Why hit on a criterion which, miraculously, excludes those fields whereas other, perhaps better, fields fall within the net?
The Minister may argue that the date of payback is the best guide to the profitability of the fields which may qualify for relief. I believe, and analysts in the City believe, that on any reasonable measure of profitability Maureen is by no means less profitable than other fields brought within the net. Magnus, for example, qualifies for relief—the limitation on relief is imposed by the £15 million per field requirement—although it is bigger, has greater potential output and a better likely rate of return than Maureen.
Nor can it be argued that, if the Minister were to rearrange the criteria to bring Maureen within the area of relief, somehow we would hand out money to large foreign oil companies. If Maureen were to qualify for relief, it is estimated that it would attract for small British independent companies 25 per cent. of the money available, whereas if the £310 million is left to be distributed as is currently planned that percentage in favour of small British independents is only 23 per cent. Therefore, there is no argument on the basis of the incidence of help to British companies, as opposed to foreign companies, to justify the exclusion of Maureen.
If this small group of amendments were passed, it would do great violence to the Bill in terms of the number of lines that would remain. In tabling them, I am not seriously proposing that the Bill should be amended in precisely that way. For a start, it would be necessary to make further adjustments, if the Minister accepted my case that payback defined in this way is not the most appropriate criterion. We may have to think of another form of limitation, for example, limiting the relief to fields which are in safeguard. Whatever consequential amendments may be required, if the Minister accepts this argument, it would be useful to the House and the industry if he were to explain how it is that payback was selected, why it has been selected to operate in this way and how the exclusion of Maureen can be justified when other fields which look less in need of relief are to be included.

The Financial Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) for the way in which he has proposed the amendments, for reiterating the Opposition's support for the Bill and for emphasising that the purpose of the amendments is to elucidate the thinking behind the Government's claim to be targeting help in the Bill. Obviously, I shall endeavour to answer his questions, but he will understand if I do not get drawn into talk about individual taxpayers. Nevertheless, I hope that my remarks will explain our philosophy and that he can draw his conclusions about how that might or might not apply to individual companies and fields.
The amendments would delete the payback qualifications for early APRT repayments under the Bill. Any company with outstanding APRT would thus qualify for accelerated repayments, whether or not that field, giving rise to that repayment, is not yet generating net cash flows.
I shall come to talk about the philosophy, but I should like to point out that if these three amendments were taken in conjunction with amendment No. 3, which raises the ceiling on the early APRT repayment to a company in respect of a particular field from £15 million to £20 million, the whole package would cost £210 million. In other words, that would increase the total reduction in 1986–87 tax take from £310 million to £520 million. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was not necessarily supporting that and that he was merely probing with his amendments.
It is legitimate for me to point out that that would be the effect of the amendments because, obviously, the Government have had to consider that effect in deciding what action to take. Even if one did not take all the amendments together and the Opposition intended the present £15 million ceiling to remain, the removal of the payback qualification alone would cost some £160 million.
Obviously, those are substantial sums and we would argue that spent in that way they would not represent money well spent.
As I made clear on Second Reading, the Bill, at least for the immediate future, is all about development. In particular, we are concerned that certain key developments are not held up because the companies involved are prevented from pressing ahead because of cash flow shortages. To achieve that, some targeting has been necessary; that is why the early APRT repayments have been designed to home in on companies in fields which have not yet begun to generate net cash flows and which may thus be expected to have particular difficulty in continuing to finance activity on the various North sea developments in which they are involved. In other words, by concentrating on fields and companies which have the possibility of a cash constraint, we shall concentrate on companies which are likely to be constrained financially in deciding whether or not to proceed with a development.
As I explained in the previous debate, that has had the result that the lion's share of the benefits has gone to independent, medium-sized and small companies. I cannot go into the case of individual companies, but I have quoted a figure of 75 per cent. going to independent, medium-sized and small companies. Perhaps it would interest the hon. Gentleman if I enlarged on that. In total £230 million of the repayments under the Bill will accrue to the benefit of the independent, medium-sized and small companies. Of that, over half will go to independent companies with no downstream activities, 40 per cent. to independent companies which are integrated, and the remainder, that is, less than 10 per cent., to foreign companies.
In terms of developments, targeting in this way should result in a significant proportion of the total repayments going to companies at present involved in key developments. They are developments which we see as particularly important to the prospects of the North sea, especially to the offshore supplies industry. Those projects, as well as being important purely in terms of development, are of particular importance because of their likely timing. With prospective start dates all coming shortly, they have the potential to generate the sorts of orders which in this particularly difficult period for the offshore supplies industry could be of assistance to it. Under the measure, some 70 per cent. of the total benefits would accrue to companies in such key developments.
If we removed the payback qualification, it would undermine, indeed one could say destroy, that targeting. I accept that the hon. Member for Dagenham has stated that his opposition to this proposal is intended to assist small companies. However, there is a choice of mechanisms by which we can assist them and we must consider the alternatives.
Under the alternative that the Opposition are putting forward, admittedly only for discussion, it is not just the smaller companies that would benefit. No less than £40 million of the additional £160 million would accrue to the majors if we followed the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dagenham. Precisely the same proportion of the extra cash provided by these amendments would go to the majors as would repayments under the terms of the Bill as it stands. I do not say that the Opposition amendments would make matters worse, but in that respect it would not do any better. Even those beneficiaries that are not majors are in many cases large companies, often foreign owned, with diversified interests.
4.30 pm
The amendments would involve spending a large amount of money to achieve a relatively small addition to the total sum of early APRT payments going to the genuinely small company. If the Opposition intend to aid small companies, it is difficult to understand why they propose altering the ceiling from £15 million to £20 million.
We are conscious of the important contribution made over many years by the smaller British independents. As I said earlier, the purpose of the measure is not to foster a specific category of company. Rather, the purpose is to give help where it is most needed and where we believe that help will encourage companies to go ahead with developments that might otherwise be restrained by cash shortages. By targeting on those companies involved in fields which have not yet reached the position of payback, we believe that we are targeting those companies that are likely to have to make decisions about developments in the near future.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is it beyond the wit of the Treasury to devise a revision of the proposed scheme to assist other British independent companies that are truly not as well benefited by the measure? My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) mentioned the contrast between the Magnus and Maureen fields, which are operated by independent British companies. Although the Minister has criticised our proposal, can he produce a revised suggestion to assist the cases that we have put to him since Second Reading?

Mr. Lamont: It is a fair criterion to aim relief at those companies involved in developments which have not reached payback. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) acknowledged, it is not an argument about profitability; it is an argument about cash flow. Where cash flow is a constraint, it is most likely to endanger development. Our proposals are routed to deal with that problem.
It would make no sense to introduce a measure that would help all companies regardless of whether they had gone beyond payback. The hon. Member for Dagenham referred to fields that have gone beyond the payback position—companies that are profitable but perhaps only moderately so, or profitable in a low sense. We have targeted the proposals on companies that have specifically not reached payback because we believe that that is the correct way to proceed to help the key developments that may or may not go ahead.
I would like to enlarge on the distribution of the benefits of the measures as proposed in the Bill. Only 24 per cent. of the repayments will go to the majors. The hon. Member for Dagenham would have to agree that, seen in the context of the majors' share of outstanding APRT—that is, 50 per cent. of the total—the fact that they are receiving 24 per cent. of the repayments does not seem unreasonable. The smaller independent companies—that is, excluding the majors and integrated companies—will receive 40 per cent. of the benefit as compared with their share of the total APRT outstanding of 22 per cent. That illustrates the distribution of the benefits in the Bill.
The Opposition's suggestion would result in benefits ceasing to be channelled primarily towards companies in key developments where cash flow is likely to be a factor that will put at risk further development activity. By our reckoning, little of the additional £160 million repayment


provided by this group of amendments would go to companies and developments in that position. The same is true of the extra benefits flowing from raising the ceiling from £15 million to £20 million. Instead of the near 70 per cent. being directed towards these developments that might or might not go ahead, under our proposals less than half would accrue to companies in such developments were the payback qualification to be removed.
I must respectfully tell the hon. Member for Dagenham that his proposal is in essence a scatter-gun approach. We cannot simply reach out for an abstract perfect solution. We must choose between the different solutions that have been proposed. The amount of resources consumed under the hon. Gentleman's proposal would be out of all proportion to the results. I am sure that it is not his intention to give such a part of the cost of the amendment to the major oil companies that are not so key to the developments in the North sea that we are anxious should proceed in the near future.
I do not believe that the hon. Member for Dagenham has proposed an alternative basis for a more targeted approach. I commend to him the conclusions that we have reached as being most targeted on those developments that will or may be constrained by cash flow. Those are the developments that are most likely to benefit the offshore supplies industry.
That is very much our concern. We are not simply concerned about the oil companies; we are concerned about the companies supplying the offshore developments. The hon. Member for Dagenham will be aware of that from his constituency experience. As I said on Second Reading, that has been a major part of our motive in bringing the measure forward. I recommend the Bill as it stands to the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Here we are on a Thursday afternoon discussing this new Bill about Government intervention. This is a far cry from 1979, when we were told that the Government believed in the entrepreneurial society. One would have thought that the oil companies in particular would not have to be bailed out in 1986 with £310 million of taxpayers' money, but that will be the financial effect of the Bill.
Here we are discussing what can loosely be termed a probing amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). We are discussing the question of £310 million being taken out of the taxpayers' pocket. That would have been provided by the oil companies in a different form, but they are being relieved of payment in 1986–87, with resulting losses to the taxpayer of some £120 million in succeeding years.
It crossed my mind that it is a little strange that the Minister can intervene so easily on such a scale. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is aware of what is happening. Is she altogether happy that £310 million is being taken from the money that would otherwise be in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's chest? That is what the Bill means.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham has proposed an alternative. I will not go into the pros and cons of that argument. All I would say on behalf of my hon. Friend, without regard to the amendments, is that he is doing no different from what Ridley has done in wanting to change the rate support grant for the various

authorities. My hon. Friend is putting forward a different argument—[Interruption.] What is wrong with my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham? I thought that I heard someone shout, "Order."

The First Deputy Chairman (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to refer to the Secretary of State for the Environment, he should refer to him by that title.

Mr. Skinner: If—[Interruption.] I do not need your help. You have plenty on in Northern Ireland with the Hillsborough agreement. If you can sort that out—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the Chair.

Mr. Skinner: I was telling my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham that I do not need his help. He has plenty of balls in the air, none of which he can catch, in respect of Northern Ireland because he decided to back the Hillsborough agreement and now he cannot handle it. Frankly, I do not need anyone's help on this. When I talk about the Ridley plan, I mean the Ridley plan and that is what I shall call it. The Ridley plan means that Derbyshire county council, or more correctly Derbyshire ratepayers, lost £23 million at a stroke of the pen by the Secretary of State for the Environment yesterday. When my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham talks about having a different set of figures and doing the same thing in a different way, he is putting forward the same type of proposition as the Secretary of State for the Environment.
I rise principally because this Bill follows the Coal Industry Bill. The Department of Energy, the Prime Minister and every other Tory Minister say that pits with extremely narrow seams of coal must be closed because they are uneconomic and they are losing money. Yet when it comes to narrow seams of oil in the private sector, this Government who are supposed to believe in market forces do not tell the oil companies to close down uneconomic fields. Instead, they offer the oil companies £310 million in tax relief so that they can put more money into the Tory party coffers ready for the general election.
If the Government can intervene in the oil industry to that extent, they have a duty to do the same for other industries such as the coal industry. I am not knocking the idea that narrow seams of oil should be exploited, but the Government must be consistent and apply the same principle to the coalfields so that we can exploit the 300 years' worth of coal under the ground. When we run into narrow seams and geologically difficult strata, the Government should do the same for the coal industry as they are doing for the oil industry.
That is the essence of the matter, and that is why I rose to speak. The Government should be consistent. They should not have one attitude to the private sector and a completely different attitude to the coal industry and the public sector generally.

Mr. Gould: I was interested in the Minister's reply to my opening speech in support of the amendment, but puzzled about two points.
The Minister said that the cost of the amendment would be £160 million. Perhaps he could explain in broad terms how he arrives at that figure. My briefing may be inadequate, but the City analysts certainly seem to believe that Maureen is the only major field that has reached payback but still has substantial unrelieved APRT,


estimated at £132 million. Even adding some of the smaller fields, it is hard to see how the Minister can arrive at his figure when one takes into account the £15 million per field limitation.
Secondly, I fully understand why the Minister will not talk about the tax affairs of individual companies, but I am still not clear why the criterion that he identifies has to apply in such a way as to produce this result, especially in relation to the Maureen field. If the Minister is unhappy about getting rid of payback, why has he fixed the date in such a way as to exclude Maureen? If we compare the treatment of Maureen and Magnus, two roughly comparable fields, one qualifying for relief and the other not, the Government save money in respect of Magnus by virtue not of the payback criterion but of the £15 million per field limitation. If that is what the Minister wants to do, that is acceptable and will work perfectly well, but why can he not do the same for Maureen? If Maureen were allowed to qualify by overcoming the payback problem, the same £15 million per field limit could be applied, thus ensuring that a valuable sum of money went to some of the smaller independent United Kingdom companies which very much need that help. I am still not clear why the Minister's criterion means that Maureen should be treated in such a very different way.

Mr. Rowlands: I do not think that the Minister described the development process in practical terms. As he knows, although there may be a major company at the top of a licence group, often a large number of other participators have to fork out their percentage if a given development is to go ahead. Such development requires the support and ability of smaller interest groups within the licence, so the cash flows of smaller independent British companies are often vital to the whole operation of the larger partner. The smaller members of the group must agree to put in their share, so their cash flows are vital to the success of the development, even when there is a bigger company at the top of the licence list. If the smaller companies cannot finance a project, it will be slowed down. That is the point illustrated by Maureen and Magnus.
I have no financial interest in those individual British independent companies. I am interested in jobs and development in Scotland and elsewhere. We are desperately worried that there may be a hiatus in development. Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has said, on top of the problems of the coal industry we fear a crisis in oil development jobs. The two problems together could have a fateful impact as about 25 per cent. of industrial investment in the past three or four years has been in the oil industry. Many of us who represent communities far away from the oil development areas have not seen the effects of that development filtering into the wider economy, and we sometimes benefit from lower oil prices. Nevertheless, on top of all the other problems, we fear a major hiatus in the development of marginal oilfields as a result of possibly temporary variations in price.
It is important that the Minister should understand the process of development. I shall not name individual companies, but some British companies are considering cutting their investment. We have not yet seen the full impact of the change in oil prices on development and jobs. Many existing obligations were in place and work

and development was being undertaken. Companies will not cut their budgets this year, but they will cut them next year when they come out of obligation and into choice, and in the process of decision making they will not be compelled by existing obligations of one kind or another to spend money.
One company, which I shall not name, has been spending about £35 million on development, but in the next 18 months it will be looking at ways of reducing development expenditure to about £20 million. If the Treasury or Parliament can devise a mechanism whereby companies like that can resume development, that might prevent a dramatic drop in development expenditure of the kind that I have outlined. Despite the arguments that we would give too much away to the big boys as a result of modification, I do not accept the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). He should try to come up with some other variation to ensure that small British companies of the kind that we spoke about on Second Reading, and which want to go ahead with development, have their cash flows helped by repayment. After all, it is an enforced loan being paid back at a date earlier than the one originally decided.
Often, the success of a major development, led by a major British company or even by a multinational, depends upon the cash flows and economics of small companies in that field. The Minister must target on those small companies as well as on the case that he made to my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham.

Mr. Norman Lamont: The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) pressed me on the figure of £160 million. I cannot elaborate on that because to do so would lead me into a discussion about individual fields. However, I can tell him that by going beyond the payback criteria, on our reckoning it would not just be Maureen that would be brought in, because companies in six different fields would benefit. That is what lies behind the figure of £160 million.

Mr. Gould: I have difficulty in understanding that figure. The figures that I have seen may be wildly inaccurate. However, they were produced by very good analysts in the City and show that the total amount of unrelieved advance petroleum revenue tax excluded by the Minister's payback criterion does not amount to £160 million, quite apart from the £15 million limit. That is why I am puzzled by his figure, and it would be helpful if he could give us some idea of what consonance there is between his set of figures and the figures by which most people outside are operating.

Mr. Lamont: I am not sure about what greater detail I can go into, but I shall see whether I can give the hon. Gentleman more detail later. Quite often an analyst's view of tax payable in respect of oil companies in aggregate differs from official estimates. That is not entirely unknown or wholly incomprehensible. I have given the hon. Gentleman the best estimate that I have, and I have explained the basis upon which it has been calculated. I have told him the number of fields in development that would be included if we did precisely what he has suggested. He has suggested going beyond payback and into the safeguard area. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) have considerable knowledge of this subject and will know precisely what I mean by the safeguard provision.
As I have explained on several occasions, the aim of the Bill is to remedy cash flows and cash flow shortages, which are a brake on developments that might have gone ahead. Safeguard bears no such direct relation to the problem that the Bill addresses, but is simply an arbitrary point in time. The cash flows of companies in a particular field at the time when safeguard runs out is likely to vary markedly depending on which field one is looking at. In practice, extending repayments under the Bill by reference to the point in time at which safeguard runs out would be expensive.
Perhaps I might now deal with the interesting and trenchant intervention by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for trying to keep us on the straight and narrow. He is the bearer of the convenant of rectitude. He accused the Government of giving way to interventionism. Altering the tax rate because of the economic climate is not unknown, but we are not doing that. As his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said, we are repaying earlier an enforced loan. We are not altering the tax rate, but repaying earlier advance petroleum revenue tax which would have been set off against mainstream petroleum revenue tax. The companies would have got it back anyway, but we are paying it back earlier because it is an enforced loan. It seems entirely equitable and right in present conditions, when many of these companies will not even pay petroleum revenue tax, that that enforced loan should be repaid.
The hon. Member for Bolsover talked about the economics of oilfields, compared them to the economics of coal mines and spoke about what was happening in uneconomic pits. One of the specific points that I made on Second Reading, and which I have made on a number of other occasions, and with which Opposition Members choose to disagree, is that it is no purpose of our fiscal policy on the oil industry to try to transform an oilfield that is uneconomic in pre-tax terms into one that is economic in post-tax terms. The hon. Member for Bolsover is quite right when he says that if we did that we would be wholly wrong. We are not doing that, and that will not be a consequence of the Bill.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lamont: I shall be delighted to give way in a moment. A project that is uneconomic in pre-tax terms will not be made economic in post-tax terms as a result of the Bill. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolsover for trying to keep us confined to the straight and narrow, but we are on the straight and narrow anyway.

Mr. Skinner: I am not trying to keep the right hon. Gentleman on the straight and narrow of market forces. I am delighted that the Government's philosophy has been shown up for what it is and that it cannot be controlled any longer. I remind the Minister that the Bill is there for any hon. Member who wants to read it. The effect of the Bill will be that in the financial year 1986–87 revenue receipts of up to £310 million will be lost to the Treasury. Certain other sums will be lost after that period. The Minister is using various forms of sophistry and trying to suggest that somehow or other the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be relieved of that amount of money. The petroleum revenue tax system has been designed—

not just by this Bill but in the one that we had two or three years ago—to take account of the narrower and shallower pools of oil in the North sea. That is what it will do this year.

Mr. Lamont: That is not the aim of the Bill. It will not make a new sort of project in the North sea economic, and that has been illustrated in the debate. It is about existing deep water developments. The hon. Gentleman says that there will be a cost to the Exchequer of some £310 million, but he omits to say that although there would be that cost now over the next three years the £310 million would have been repaid anyway. The amount will be totally offset in later years. All we propose is a cash flow effect which will be offset in later years. The hon. Gentleman understands that, because he described it as an enforced loan which would be repayable anyway at a later stage. The hon. Gentleman is rebuking us, and his hon. Friends are urging us, with little conviction, to go even further. However, neither of them is entirely right and we are quite content with the provisions as they are.

5 pm

Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister answer one question? He did not respond to my point that development is dependent upon smaller partners being in a position to finance their share of the development. Therefore, the cash flow of the smaller partners in some of the fields is equally important. That situation has arisen in the Maureen field, which is the example that we gave to the Minister. Can the Minister devise any way to assist that process through the Bill?

Mr. Lamont: I do not wish to be drawn into a discussion on just one field. The hon. Gentleman keeps commenting on one field which has reached the payback stage. He is right in what he has said, in general terms, about the role of the smaller companies within total field development. One of the effects of the measures that we are putting forward will be that the smaller partners within the fields will also benefit from our proposals. They are the ones that may be cash constrained. We should concentrate on those companies and on those fields which have not reached the payback stage. Some of the smaller companies are precisely in the category which the hon. Gentleman has advocated we should help. Nobody is saying that we can help all companies in that situation, but many of the companies to which we are directing our assistance will fall firmly within that category.

Mr. Gould: For the sake of the record, I should re-affirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and I mentioned a particular field because it is the one field which seems to be treated in a rather extraordinary fashion by the criteria which the Bill identifies. That is the only reason why we have singled it out, and the only reason why I argue that the Minister should have dealt with it. If the Minister had been able to deal with that, perhaps we could have seen rather more clearly how the Bill is meant to work.
We were not, as the Minister suggested, urging him with great enthusiasm to hare off in one direction rather than another. We had hoped to provide an opportunity for the Minister to clarify his mind for us at any rate, if not for himself. I am not sure that we fully succeeded. In my case at any rate, the Minister's thinking remains somewhat opaque. However, we have had a useful debate and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Gould: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 26, leave out '£15' and insert '£20'.
The amendment is, if anything, even more probing than the previous amendment. It is designed to draw attention to how the Minister decided upon the sum that he felt was available for relief in that way. Did he and his ministerial colleagues decide that there was about £310 million available for that purpose and then hit upon a collection of criteria to split it up in a more or less satisfactory way? Or did he say, no, certain companies in certain categories deserve help at a certain level, and when that was totted up did it happen to come to £310 million? What process did the Minister follow? Is there some rigid control or strategic thinking relating to the way in which the Government's finances are managed? How did the Minister produce that sum? If it is, in the first place, a global sum, are we entirely satisfied that the Minister's proposals are the right way to divide it out? Contrary to the thrust of the amendment, is that a case for putting in a lower limit per field to allow more companies to share in the goodies, albeit at a lower level?
If, on the other hand, there is no global limit and the Minister, out of the goodness of his heart, and because he is concerned about the welfare of those companies, would simply like to help them in some way, why stop short at £15 million per field, and why stop short at £310 million? If it is a good thing, why not, as one of the Minister's hon. Friends said to the Prime Minister recently, have more of the same? Let us have a little more of the £800 million which it is estimated remains outstanding as advance petroleum revenue tax that has not been paid back.
The Minister will see that the amendment is designed to allow him to explain to the Committee exactly how the figure was arrived at and how—assuming that some figure was arrived at—it was then decided to split it up.

Mr. Norman Lamont: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and I shall try not to be opaque. Taken in isolation, the effect of the amendment would be to increase from £15 million to £20 million the maximum amount that could be repaid to any company in respect of a particular field. Of course, the effect would be that the same companies would benefit as under the provisions of the Bill as drafted. However, any company with an APRT credit of more than £15 million in respect of a particular field would receive a larger repayment. In fact, less than half the companies qualifying for repayments would benefit from the proposed £5 million increase in the ceiling. We do not have that amount of tax to use up. The revenue effect of the amendment would be to reduce oil tax revenues by a further £35 million in 1986–87, bringing the total reduction in oil tax revenues to £345 million.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether there was any strategy or precision behind the proposed figure. Several factors were taken into account when we decided where to set the ceiling. One major factor was the revenue effect of the APRT measure, which has to be weighed alongside

other competing claims for the Exchequer's resources. The other factor was simply our objective of targeting repayment on companies which might suffer particular cash flow difficulties. It was our judgment that that degree of relief would reduce the risk of cash shortages constraining future development work.
I explained to the hon. Gentleman, in previous amendments and on Second Reading, that we have particular key developments in mind. There are companies involved which operate fields which have not yet reached the payback stage. That could constrain further development. It was our view that that sort of relief would be sufficient. That is our judgment and our view, and it is the best explanation—and I hope not an opaque one—that I can give to the Committee.

Mr. Gould: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the revenue effects of the change that is proposed in the amendment. I hesitate to say that his answer was in any way opaque, but, from his reply to my wider question, I understood that there was no strategic thinking, that it was not the Minister's intention to convey any sense of the part that this measure was to play in the overall pattern that the Government intended to develop for public spending, that it was simply something that had arisen, ad hoc, to be judged on its own merits, and that he decided upon the figure of £310 million by accident. We shall bear that impression in mind when we look at other aspects of the Government's public spending plans, which they will no doubt announce from time to time.
There is a sense in which we are entitled to worry about that a little closer to home, a little closer to the precise point of the Bill. This is simply the beginning of a process whereby the Government, who have been flushed with money derived from North sea oil revenues over recent years, and who have been more flushed with that sort of money than any of their predecessors were fortunate enough to be, are beginning the process of handing back, through the tax mechanism, a good proportion of that money to the oil industry. This is the first stage and the first instalment. There will be further instalments. For example, as abandonment costs rise, tax relief will be given for those. Those chickens will all come home to roost in years to come, when the Minister and his ministerial colleagues will long since have departed those Benches. Nevertheless, we are concerned, and entitled to be concerned, that there should be some strategic thinking about the balance of advantage between the taxpayer and the Government where the flows are considerable.
I suspect that we shall not flush the Minister out any further. We understand how the figure of £310 million was arrived at. At least he has given us a description of that process, and we must be grateful for that small mercy. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland Appropriation (No. 3)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Before I call the Minister to move the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order, I remind the House that the order deals with specific Supplementary Estimates, primarily in respect of three topics: the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, industrial development and energy efficiency. Debates should be confined to the subjects set out in the Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I submit that, as the effect of the order is to maintain the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund, and as the existence of that fund has been one of the topics of each successive debate upon the order, that also is within the scope of the order because, without it, that fund would not be sustainable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are dealing with Supplementary Estimates and they do not call into question the system itself.

Mr. Powell: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the necessity for the order is due to the existence of a separate Consolidated Fund for Northern Ireland, and that applies equally to an order which relates to Supplementary Estimates as well as to an order which refers to the main Estimates.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am told that the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken, but we shall see how the debate goes, and I shall decide what is in order and what is out of order.

Mr. Peter Archer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not always find myself rising in support of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). I fully understand your ruling, with which we shall all comply, but, as I understand it, such rulings are largely to ensure that, when the time of the House is constrained, hon. Members do not spend time on matters which fall outside the orbit of the debate. I suspect that this evening time will not be under quite such a constraint and it may be that you will feel able to be a little more liberal in your interpretation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I said, I shall give careful consideration to what the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) said, and if, as we move on, I feel that I have to intevene, I shall do so.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.
The order is being made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
This is the first time I have had the pleasure of opening a Northern Ireland Appropriation debate. On this occasion the debate will be limited as the House is being asked to approve extra funds for only one Vote and my opening remarks will be concentrated on that provision.
The extra funds are being sought for Class II, Vote 3. This covers expenditure by the Department of Economic

Development on local enterprise, aircraft and shipbuilding, energy efficiency, mineral exploration, other support services, capital grants, and the new Technology Board for Northern Ireland.
On 10 June last, the House approved the 1986–87 main Estimates which included £77·3 million for this Vote. Today I came to the House to seek a further £50·5 million, taking the total proposed expenditure on this Vote to £127·8 million for the year. The Estimates booklet, which gives full details of the additional expenditure, is available from the Vote Office.
Some £3 million of the increase is for the Local Enterprise Development Unit—Northern Ireland's small business agency. Since its creation in 1971, LEDU has promoted 27,000 jobs in a highly cost-effective manner. I pay warm tribute to the success it continues to achieve. Especially encouraging is the consistently high level of job promotions achieved in recent years. For example, in 1984–85 4,200 jobs were promoted and renewed and in 1985–86 the figure was 4,300. In recognition of the vital part that the Government believe the small firms sector will play in revitalising Northern Ireland's economy, the Government have recently approved an increased of 30 per cent. in LEDU's staffing.
There is an increase of £2 million in support of Short Brothers plc. The Government are naturally disappointed at the recently announced downturn in the company's financial performance in 1985–86, but I hope that the commitment and ability of both the management and the work force will ensure an early return to profitability.
Also in section B hon. Members will note the increase in the provision for Belfast shipbuilders Harland and Wolff from £37 million to £68 million. Part of that increase is to meet the cost of the 800 redundancies announced by the company on 25 November. While any redundancies are to be regretted, Harland and Wolff, like other yards throughout the world, has had to face the severe decline in the availability of new orders. The Government are doing what they can to help those made redundant by earmarking part of the increased provision to fund the setting up of Harland and Wolff Enterprises. This will operate in a similar way to British Shipbuilders Enterprises and will provide redundant workers with practical advice and assistance towards retraining and re-employment.
Hon. Members will see from the Estimates booklet that there are some increases and some reductions in expenditure on energy efficiency and other support services. One of the increases is a figure of £100,000 for the Government's Monergy campaign. Thousands of energy consumers have received domestic, industrial and school information packs and responded to competitions aimed at raising the level of awareness of the real savings that can be achieved through good energy practice.
Already Northern Ireland industry and commerce are achieving savings of almost £4 million per year. Taken alongside the considerable savings which are undoubtedly being made by the domestic consumer, that can only amount to good news for the Northern Ireland economy. A good start has been made, but we must build on the level of awareness which now exists. In the next stage of the campaign we shall be concentrating on turning awareness into action by helping consumers make the right choices for the best energy money savings, comfort and profit. The additional provision that I have mentioned is required to achieve that aim.
Section D of the Vote provides an extra £12 million in this financial year for capital investment grants for industrial development. As some hon. Members will be aware, there was a big increase in the volume of capital grant claims in early 1985. Rather than impose a moratorium on claims, the Government decided to provide extra resources last year on the basis that there would be a corresponding reduction in the total bill in this financial year. However, pressure on the scheme has continued into 1986–87, and although a number of cost-effective changes introduced in March 1985 are now beginning to have their effect, the original estimate for this financial year is likely to be insufficient by £12 million.
The Supplementary Estimate contains a token provision of £1,000 for the purpose of drawing hon. Members' attention to the setting up of the Technology Board for Northern Ireland. This is an important step in the industrial development of the Province. The board's responsibilities include advising the Government on the application of science and technology to economic needs in Northern Ireland, and particularly on the contribution technology can make to the growth and development of the manufacturing and service sectors of industry. The board will assist and advise the Government on those issues which involve more than one Northern Ireland Department; it will advise on areas of policy where there is interaction between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and bring together and represent a distinct Northern Ireland view on technological issues at national level.
That concludes my opening remarks. I will listen with interest to the debate and respond to as many of the points raised as possible. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Peter Archer: One of the most interesting aspects of life in this House is its unpredictability. We were expecting to begin this debate at 7 o'clock, and I, at least, was awaiting the arrival of material about which I was hoping to question the Minister. If I find myself speaking from the heart rather than from documentation, it is not because there is no documentation; it is more to do with the way in which the Government's managers manage the business of the House.
I am aware, of course, that we are confined to the matters in the order. In the course of the Appropriation debate on 17 November 1984 the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) referred to these debates as "triennial entertainment". On whether they qualify as entertainment I would not venture an opinion, but as to their value in improving daily life among the people in Northern Ireland, I confess to having an element of doubt. The right hon. Member for South Down was referring to the existence of a separate Consolidated Fund for Northern Ireland, and I, for one, would be happy to discuss that.
It is regrettable that the discussions which began two years ago about the details of the way in which Northern Ireland is governed have run into ground which has been transformed into a quagmire by events which bear little relation to the merits of the financial system, or indeed to direct rule itself. My anxiety is more pragmatic. Time and again, we who take part in these debates raise questions, and the Minister, whoever it may be, duly replies, or, more

usually, says that he would have replied to questions if time had permitted. I assume that that will not happen tonight.
Occasionally, one or two of the issues that are raised are followed up elsewhere, or reported in the media, depending on the hour the debate occurred, but nothing changes and things continue on the same course, or they go from bad to worse, and the people of Northern Ireland must go on living with that state of affairs.
We all pay tribute to the Local Enterprise Development Unit, and nothing that I say is intended to cast doubt on its effectiveness or dedication. But five loaves do not always feed a multitude. Unemployment in Northern Ireland is currently running at 19·3 per cent. of the population. That figure represents the whole of the population, and it is a Government figure based on the way in which they currently calculate these things. It is calculated in accordance with, I believe, the eighteenth change in the way in which the Government deal with these figures. It represents those who are claiming benefits, but not, by any means, all those who are desperate for work. The Government's figure for male unemployment is 22·7 per cent. That figure alone means that 130,000 people, excluding school leavers, are seeking work and are being told that they are not wanted. To that figure must be added 3,248 school leavers.
Those are statistics, but they tell a story about human life. They tell the story of youngsters who have been waiting for the experience, known to thousands of their forerunners, of taking home their first wage packet, but who are now brushed aside without any hope. They tell the story of men in their fifties who are told that they are on the scrap heap and that their working lives are probably over. They tell of single women and housewives who, for a few modest luxuries, depend on part-time jobs which have given them the chance of earning some money and a channel into companionship and a structured life. They reflect the story of factories such as Gallaghers of Belfast, Molins in Derry, British Van Heusen in Ballywater and National Supply in Maydown, all of which have formed part of the people's way of life. It is a story of 800 more job losses at Harland and Wolff and of jobs endangered at Shorts.
If we could offer a measure of hope, this debate would be worth while, but we know from the Government's assessment of the next four years at least, and from their submission to the EEC regional fund—we may not have been intended to know—that they accept that they have failed to generate new employment in the manufacturing sector. And the Government have stated:
Recent analyses have suggested that, in terms of unemployment alone, the prospect is that a high rate of unemployment is likely to be the norm for some time.
That is the assessment for Northern Ireland. That situation has not arisen because there is no need for human labour, nor that the work is being done by technology. We know of the housing needs of Northern Ireland—I am not ignoring for one moment the achievements of the Housing Executive in recent years—and that the level of unfit houses is still unacceptable. The House will be aware that there is massive unemployment in the construction industry, not because houses are being built by robots, but because they are not being built at all.
School cleaners are troubled by the likelihood that they will lose their jobs if the cleaning is put out to private contract. I have spoken to ladies who are worried about


the pensions for which they have worked. They had hoped that, whatever their current earnings, their pensions would cushion them against the impact of poverty in their later years, but now they do not know. They are trying to keep the schools clean, but they are afraid that they will not be paid for the same number of hours. If they try to provide the same standard, they might work for hours for which they will not be paid. All this is happening not because the schools are being cleaned by labour-saving devices, but because they are not being cleaned at all. It is the same story for dinner ladies, hospital ancillary staff and many more people. Do the Government believe that there is some curious mechanism which translates privatisation into jobs?
When the Minister replies to the debate, will he turn his attention to section C and tell us about the development and use of lignite, which he mentioned earlier? We are aware that any Government must look at all the options for future energy supplies and I do not pretend that all the arguments are one way. No energy resource arrives without a price tag. The use of lignite will cause serious environmental problems and I assume we all agree that we must not embark upon using it without proper advice and proper consideration of those matters.
We might have thought that this could best be achieved by development under the auspices of the electricity board. Is the interest of local residents more likely to be safeguarded if the only consideration is one of profitability? Is wild life more likely to be protected, and jobs more likely to be generated, if these matters are decided by the accountants? These issues may be better pursued in other debates. I hope that the Government will consider the advantages of using the Northern Ireland Committee, where such matters could be explored in greater detail and perhaps debates more readily attended by hon. Members who have a direct concern with them.
Finally, I wonder whether we might ask the Minister to ask the Government business managers whether we are always condemned to discuss these questions in the closing hours of a Thursday evening when, understandably, many hon. Members are dispersing for the weekend.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): The closing hours?

Mr. Archer: These are unpopular hours by any standards, and on a Thursday evening, when it was not beyond prediction that the House would not be crowded. I am only saying that the people of Northern Ireland may misunderstand the situation. I should not like them to think that hon. Members do not care about people in Northern Ireland. It arises more as a reflection of the priority afforded by the Government's business managers.
Of course, we shall not oppose the Government's motion. I venture to doubt whether this is the best way of maintaining the principle of redress of grievances before Supply or of examining the way in which the Government manage the economy. If we make do with the tools in our hands, it is only because we can do nothing else.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to be as tolerant as possible. Because there are hon. Members who were not

here when I made my original statement, it might help the House if I say that comments should be related to the purpose for which these Supplementary Estimates are required, and not to the general financial system for Northern Ireland. Right hon. and hon. Members will realise that the same rule applies to Supplementary Estimates on Estimates days relating to the United Kingdom as a whole. There is no special departure for tonight's debate.

Mr. Ian Gow: I should like to follow up a point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). There are many occasions when the House has legitimate cause for complaint about the timing of debates on Northern Ireland, but I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was justified in his complaint against the business managers for the timing of today's debate. As I understand it, mercifully, the debate of this draft order can continue until 10 o'clock, and we are, of course, embarking on the debate at an early hour. I agree with the thrust of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, however, when he implied that, in general, the House discusses Northern Ireland matters much later in the day than is the case today. I also agree that the whole basis on which we discuss proposed legislation for Northern Ireland is most unsatisfactory. It is wrong that we should legislate for one part of the United Kingdom by unamendable Order in Council, whereas for England, Scotland and Wales we legislate by the conventional Bill proceedings.
We are anxious, of course, to follow the ruling that you have given twice during this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the explanatory note at the end of the draft order. It reminds us that we are asked to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland of a further sum for the current financial year. My hon. Friend the Minister of State reminded the House that, in addition to the £50·5 million in schedule 1, the House has already approved expenditure of £70 million.
My hon. Friend has come to the House only two thirds of the way through this financial year to say that that sum which the House has approved already—£70 million—is not enough and to ask us to allocate a further sum of £50·5 million. My hon. Friend the Minister did not dwell sufficiently on the reasons why we are invited in December, only two thirds of the way through this financial year, to agree to such a large additional sum. We are invited to approve this expenditure by the Department of Economic Development.
I have before me the text of an article in The Times written just three months ago by the distinguished chairman of the Northern Ireland Economic Council, Sir Charles Carter. It is legitimate for the House to examine some of the reasons why my hon. Friend the Minister seeks approval for further expenditure on such a substantial scale. I believe that Sir Charles was entirely right when he gave his analysis from a position of peculiar—indeed, unique—authority of what has been happening in the Province. He said:
Unhappily, the government's initiative in the Anglo-Irish agreement, whatever its political or foreign policy virtues, has made things much worse for the economy. The agreement has stimulated new unrest".
He continued:


by introducing the novel concept of giving another country a right to be consulted on affairs internal to a part of the United Kingdom, it has created political uncertainty.
I stress the words
The agreement has stimulated new unrest
and
has made things much worse for the economy.
It is partly because the agreement has made things much worse for the economy that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has come before the House. The whole economy of Northern Ireland and the prospects for employment, to which the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West referred, depend to a significant extent on the confidence which those who are potential investors—whether from within or from without the United Kingdom—have in the political stability of the Province.
There is not a single hon. Member who believes that there is greater stability than before the Anglo-Irish agreement. The House will remember that the purpose of the Anglo-lrish agreement—a purpose which I shared—was to bring peace, stability and reconciliation. Instead of peace, there has been strife. Instead of stability, there has been turmoil. Instead of reconciliation, there has been increased sectarian suspicion.
It is against that background that the House is asked to approve the sum of £50·5 million. One of the adverse consequences of the Anglo-Irish agreement is that there is no prospect, in my judgment, of a diminution in the evil of unemployment—unemployment in the Province is higher than in any other part of the United Kingdom—and no prospect of substantial increased investment from the private sector in the Province, unless we can achieve greater peace and stability. It is a direct consequence of the Anglo-Irish agreement that my hon. Friend the Minister is asking so early in the financial year for this additional Vote. I believe that he did not deal in sufficient detail with the causes that brought him to the House.
There will be other occasions when the House will want to devote its attention to how better Northern Ireland may be governed and how better that peace, stability and reconciliation which we seek may be achieved. But this evening I am afraid that it is a sign—I disagree on this point with the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West—of the tragic lack of interest of the House in Northern Ireland that so few hon. Members are in the Chamber at what is, after all, a very early hour.
I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies he will explain how he believes that in future there will be less of a burden upon the Exchequer, because I fear that the economic and employment prospects for the Province will remain bleak as long as the Anglo-Irish agreement is in force.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In moving the order, the Minister of State referred to the fact that it is the first such order which it has fallen to him to lay before the House. There has been a certain repetitiveness in the debates we have had on these triannual orders over preceding years. If I refer to that matter I hope that I shall receive the same tolerance as you extended, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) for it is a matter upon which new enlightenment has been cast in a relatively new environment which scarcely existed only a year ago.
In each of those debates we have found ourselves asking—it is a question we have to ask if we are to say "Aye" or "No" when the motion is eventually put—why we have to have this order. Be it an order embodying a Supplementary Estimate or not, it is an order, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne pointed out, which authorises a transaction on the Consolidated Fund of a part of the United Kingdom that is constantly kept completely separate from the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom as a whole and from the procedures which attach to the management of that fund.
There is no lack of desire expressed in the House that we should find a way of avoiding that and thus avoiding the demand upon the time of the House which an order such as this one imposes. There has been no lack of those suggestions that the differentiation between the administration of Northern Ireland and that of the rest of the kingdom is unnecessary and undesirable. We know that the Patronage Secretary would be very glad to find a way of dispensing with this piece of ritual; and we know too, because he has said so on a number of occasions, that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West also believes that we should have been devoting our minds to that question.
Yet, after all these orders and all these years, we find ourselves confronting the same negative and sterile repetition of the same procedure as one order follows another. At first that seemed difficult to understand. Some of us addressed reasoned arguments to the Minister on the Front Bench or sent reasoned arguments to the Patronage Secretary through his representatives, who are invariably on the Front Bench; some of us sought, so far as there were fellow hon. Members in the House, to convince them that it was quite unnecessary for them to be thus engaged.
The reason for the brick wall has not, however, been a secret: the reason for the brick wall in the face of all our pleas has been on the record for some years. As it happens, it was placed on the record on 29 June 1982 in the course of deliberations upon the Northern Ireland Bill at that time when reference was made to the fact that, in the view of the advisers of the Government, we
could not break certain undertakings we have given to the Irish Government over the constitutional future of Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 29 June 1982; Vol. 26, c. 770.]
It was a statement which, if true, was perfectly adequate to explain the determination and the deftness with which one Minister and one Administration after another continued to maintain upon the statute book and operate, at whatever inconvenience, the relics and symbolism of separate self-governing institutions in Northern Ireland.
At the time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) placed the evidence at the disposal of the Prime Minister and invited her to investigate the truth of the matter. That created a severe difficulty for the Prime Minister who, in my belief, had known the facts two or three years before. If she were to admit the existence of such "undertakings", questions would necessarily arise as to the nature of those undertakings and the reasons why the Government had entered into them. Those questions in turn would lead into the forbidden territory of national security.
She was in a quandary, and she resolved that quandary in a way that is now not unfamiliar to us. At the request of the then Secretary of State—that, too, does not surprise—she entrusted the investigation of the truth of the matter to—I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is


not normal for hon. Members addressing you to indulge in a guessing game and I have no intention of doing so. Nevertheless, if such a question had been put to you as, "Guess who—one guess is allowed—was entrusted with the investigation?", I am sure that you would have arrived at the right answer and said, without hesitation, "Sir Robert Armstrong." Indeed, it was Sir Robert Armstrong.
Upon the basis of the investigation—if that is the correct description—that he carried out, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland assured the House in a written answer on the day before the House rose for the summer recess not that the subject matter of the assertion was untrue, but that the evidence for it was insecure.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is it not the case that the old penalty of transportation to Australia has been revived in the case of Sir Robert Armstrong?

Mr. Powell: I was hoping to work into my few remaining remarks, of course not in entirely uncomplimentary fashion, some allusion to the antipodean gladiatorial performances of the Cabinet Secretary. This is a matter that still requires to be probed and who better to probe it in the correct context than the Cabinet Secretary? One day he will be back from his travels. Perhaps then the Prime Minister will invite him to renew his effort to establish the truth of the matter which was submitted to him for investigation those four years ago, which still maintains its clammy grip upon everything that concerns Northern Ireland, and of which the memory has been renewed sharply and acridly in the minds of many of us by the Anglo-Irish agreement, to which the hon. Member for Eastbourne referred.
I believe that neither this House nor the British people, who have in recent weeks had quite an education in the sort of things that happen behind their backs, ought to be content to leave this matter where it lies. I have done my best. I did my best when in August and September 1982 I made a number of speeches outside the House and therefore without the protection of any privilege. The hon. Member for Eastbourne will confirm, and I put on record, that on that occasion I invited Sir Robert Armstrong to bring the matter to the courts if any wrong had been done by my assertions either to him or to any other person.
We need to know the truth about the nature of that compulsion which continuously constrains the Government of the United Kingdom to behave towards Northern Ireland in a manner quite incompatible with their alleged objectives, in a manner quite incompatible with the welfare of the people of that Province and with the duties that the Government and the House owe to it.
We have before us tonight only the hem of the garment of that constraint: the constraint to carry out "undertakings" given to a foreign Government and a foreign power, which dominates our governance of the Province of Northern Ireland. The time is ripe. The enlightenment and the inquisitiveness of the people are aroused now for an examination of this matter to get to the root of it, to get at the truth. What were the "undertakings"? What are the commitments that had been made all along by the Government of the United Kingdom which, among other consequences, have landed us in maintaining an obsolete form of financial administration of Northern Ireland, necessitating this debate upon the order this evening?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Minister of State and to the House for having arrived a few moments late for this debate. I was at a meeting with the chairman of the Northern Ireland tourist board. He told me that his industry, among others, has not done so well during the last year. But I must not speak about tourism. I am mindful of the admonition that you gave the House and that you repeated for the benefit of late arrivals. I shall concentrate my remarks upon class II and upon the words
For expenditure by the Department of Economic Development on local enterprise".
I understand that the words "local enterprise" do not apply only to the Local Enterprise Development Unit, that admirable organisation, because when I turn to the subheadings I find the words
Other local enterprise initiatives. To meet the increasing response from several organisations to measures to stimulate local enterprise.
I am not quite clear what those words mean. I should be grateful if the Minister of State could explain them to me and if he could tell me what are the separate organisations that are there mentioned.
Is there any connection at all between the Department of Economic Development's expenditure on local enterprise and the intended disbursement from the international fund for Ireland? Approximately three quarters of the resources of that fund, we are told, are to be spent in Northern Ireland. If so, is the principle of additionality to be applied? When shall we have the opportunity to discuss the international fund for Ireland and its relevance to local enterprise?
A statement was made in another place on 5 November by my noble Friend Baroness Hooper, but surely it is in the House of Commons that we should apply our minds to financial matters. This agreement was signed in Washington. To many of us, this agreement is deeply objectionable as part of the price of the Anglo-Irish agreement. It may amuse Ministers on the Treasury Bench that we are incensed by this agreement, but a number of my hon. Friends and I regret that Her Majesty's Government should have stooped to its acceptance.

Mr. John Hume: I had not intended to begin my speech by referring to the Anglo-Irish agreement, because I should welcome a full-scale debate on the subject. However, I was appalled by the remarks of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I have said to him before that he presents a very good Unionist case in this House, but he never addresses his mind to the problem that we are trying to solve—the deep division within a community in which there is more than one point of view. It is easy to argue for the maintenance of a Unionist tradition, except that those who live in Northern Ireland know that it has never made a positive contribution to peace and stability. Instead, it is one of the factors that has led us into the situation in which we find ourselves today.
To suggest, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne suggested, that the economic situation is worse because of the Anglo-Irish agreement is a travesty of the truth. The hon. Gentleman talks softly in this House in defence and in support of people who, outside this House, have engaged in a deliberate campaign of blackmail against the decision of this Government and of this House—a


campaign that has resulted, among other things, in the throwing of petrol bombs into the homes of policemen and into the homes of innocent Catholics in an attempt to force this Government and House to back down. That is the nature of the campaign. It has been organised to frighten people off.
Has the hon. Gentleman ever considered the consequences for the economy and for peace and stability if this House were to listen to him and to his friends outside the House and to surrender to such blackmail? Does he not believe that the net result wold be to give massive encouragement to those who say that the democratic process is a waste of time, particularly when people are forced to back down because of the sort of blackmail that he is softly defending in this House?

Mr. Gow: I think that the hon. Gentleman will have heard me speak in this House and outside, but, in case he has not, I repeat what I have said both within and without this place. I condemn at all times and in all circumstances, for today, for tomorrow and for ever, all unlawful and all unconstitutional action in the Province. It follows from that that I condemn even more strongly all violent action—notably, of course, the action against the police to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I hope, therefore, that he will withdraw any implication that I have ever at any time done other than advocate only lawful and constitutional opposition to the Anglo-Irish agreement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I said that I wanted to be tolerant, and I shall allow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) to reply to the comments of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). However, I hope that the hon. Member will relate his remarks to the order that is before the House.

Mr. Hume: Yes, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am aware of the public position on violence and violent acts that the hon. Member for Eastbourne adopts. However, the net effect of the case that he is making is to invite the House and the Government to back down in the face of blackmail and violence. If the Government were foolish enough to listen to him, it would lead to the complete undermining of the democratic process and to the encouragement of those who believe that those kind of methods make Governments change their minds.
I agree that unemployment in Northern Ireland is extremely serious. It has been serious for a very long time, as those of us who live there know. When 44 per cent. of the population is under the age of 25, we are screaming out for action to be taken. In particular, I draw attention to the plight of the rural areas in Northern Ireland. They do not receive very much attention.
Has the Minister of State considered the recently virtually unanimous proposal of the European Parliament, which received a positive response from the European Commission, that there should be an integrated rural programme for Northern Ireland to tackle the problems in the rural areas in a co-ordinated and integrated fashion—not just farming problems but those relating to roads, housing, job creation, tourism, afforestration, and so on? It should also consider new ways of using land, with a view to increasing the number of jobs. I hope that when they have considered that proposal the Government will respond positively to it.
On that same area of job creation, we welcome the setting up of the Co-operative Development Agency as one

of the instruments of self-help in Northern Ireland. Last week the Government rightly announced that they were providing £2 million to try to offset the 800 job losses in Harland and Wolff and to help those people find employment with new job creation ideas of their own. When one compares that with the mere £50,0000 that has been given to the Co-operative Development Agency, it is hard to take seriously the Government's intentions on co-operative development as being an instrument of self-help and job creation. I ask the Government to examine that issue seriously.
On Tuesday evening I had the privilege of hearing the Secretary of State make a speech in my constituency. It received a remarkably warm reception, because he concentrated on encouraging self-help and promised that the Government would strongly support and encourage it. One area is co-operative development, and that is one of the ways in which other European countries have made a substantial contribution to resolving unemployment problems, especially among young people.
I suggest that a mere £50,000 for the Co-operative Development Agency is not a statement of serious intent.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I make the emollient observation that the hon. Gentleman has played a part in that sphere in Derry.

Mr. Hume: I like to think that I played a major part in starting co-operatives in my constituency and throughout Ireland. I was involved in the most successful co-operative in the history of Ireland—I am very modest about that—the Credit Union Movement. That organisation has helped thousands of people. One out of four people in Ireland are involved in it. I have such faith in self-help because it is one of the few ways in which people in that part of the world can get to grips with the serious economic problems that face them.
I suggest to the Minister, when talking about LEDU and IDB and the instruments of job creation, that not enough attention is paid to marketing as an instrument for creating new jobs in Northern Ireland. Heavy finance goes into attracting inward investment, but we must rely more and more on our own small and medium sized enterprises. Helping them to grow would be one way forward. One way of doing that would be to devote more attention and resources to developing marketing on behalf of small and medium sized enterprises.
I should like to mention several other issues related to job creation, such as housing, but I understand there will be an opportunity to debate those matters on another occasion.

Mr. Richard Holt: I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the debate.
I wish to intercede on this Appropriation order on two smallish but fundamental matters. Not long ago I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State what had happened to the money that the American Government were forcing upon this Parliament whether it wanted it or not. Will there be an opportunity to debate that? I understood from his reply that the matter was on ice and that there would be an opportunity to debate it. I wondered whether that international sum of money was being slipped in without the House debating it. In consequence, I should like a clear answer whether


Parliament will have the opportunity to debate whether it wants American blood money. I strongly support the Anglo-Irish agreement. Perhaps I should not say American blood money, but American vote-buying money. I wonder whether Admiral Poindexter was the adviser to the American Government at that time. But leaving that aside, I want to know whether the Government have yet made a decision on behalf of the country to accept that money, and whether Parliament will have an opportunity of debating how it will be treated and handled. Will it be in excess or in place of all the other moneys which go to Northern Ireland?
On the thick piece of paper of this order the word "shipbuilding" appears. We are all aware of the dialogue that has taken place over shipyards in the north-east of England, which have been desperately competing against Harland and Wolff. We were told that decisions both now and in the future would be taken on a purely economic basis. The order contains the possibility of additional moneys being made available to Northern Ireland. Will that be taken into consideration by the Government when deciding on the economic fairness of bids for ships by Swan Hunter and Harland and Wolff? In my naivety I did not think, when the Government accepted the American money, that it would be used to the possible detriment of my constituents and others in the north-east of England. We already suffer severely enough. I know that Northern Ireland also suffers from unemployment, but it will not help if the people of Northern Ireland benefit from the American money to the detriment of my constituents.
I wish it to be made absolutely clear that, first, none of that money has been used or appropriated and that we shall have the opportunity of debating it; and, secondly, if and when that comes about and if shipbuilding is one of the subjects, whether decisions in that respect will take account of unemployment in the north-east of England and the fact that jobs are needed just as much there as in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) made a relevant point. The Government now face the problem of how to deal with the shipbuilding industry in the private and public sectors, and in respect of Harland and Wolff in the months and years ahead. Problems in shipbuilding do not exist just in the north-east. In Southampton, Vosper Thornycroft, a modern yard, is desperate for orders.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) made an unbelievable speech. He blamed much of the present unemployment and many of the economic problems of Northern Ireland on the Anglo-Irish agreement. The biggest sum of money in the order is £31 million, to be spent on Harland and Wolff. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the decline in shipbuilding worldwide. However, at present, the Japanese shipyards are losing enormous amounts of money. One shipyard alone is losing 19 billion yen. In 1945, when I was in Japan, the yen was worth 4p, but now it is worth very much more. I do not know what that sum of money amounts to when translated into sterling, but it is a large sum of money. There is no question that some countries are busy subsidising their yards to a much greater extent than we are. That is why orders are still going to Malta and other

places. There is no way in which we can compete when countries are prepared to pour so much money into the kitty to keep their yards afloat. It is a difficult position. I do not know the answer, but it has nothing to do with the Anglo-Irish agreement and it is absolutely daft to say that it has.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: rose—

Mr. Ross: I was referring to the hon. Member for Eastbourne, but I shall give way.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does the hon. Gentleman dissent from the views expressed by the chairman of the Northern Ireland Economic Council on this matter?

Mr. Ross: I was about to mention the chairman of the Northern Ireland Economic Council, because I have read some of his reports. I shall, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, make some comments later. As I understand it, however, the chairman of the Northern Ireland Economic Council gave evidence to the New Ireland Forum, and was very much in favour of the forum report. The article that he wrote seemed to be contrary to what he has been quoted as saying by the hon. Member for Eastbourne.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I appeared before the New Ireland Forum on the same day as Sir Charles Carter. He lent no comfort to any such idea. I refer the hon, Gentleman to his article in The Times.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) tells me that Sir Charles Carter was in favour of joint authority. I do, however, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on giving evidence before the Forum. That was a brave and noble step, and I welcome the fact that he took it. I also promise to read the article in The Times.
I welcome the additional moneys being made available to the LEDU. That organisation deserves enormous praise. I wish to goodness that we had something like it in the Isle of Wight. We have many problems, and the unemployment rate is likely to reach 18 per cent. later this month. I believe that the LEDU has done a great job. I also congratulate it on the form of its annual report, which is at least encouraging.
I do not visit Northern Ireland often, because the Government do not finance me to that extent. Therefore, I speak with some trepidation, as I do not have any great knowledge of this subject. Moreover, I very much regret that there are not more Northern Ireland Members present, as they could speak with much more knowledge than me. I happen to sell its products, so I asked to go to Tyrone Glass in Dungannon and to Belleek, a world famous pottery factory in Fermanagh. Both of those companies have gone through difficult times. However, it was a pleasure to go to Tyrone Glass and to see a lot of young people turning out a high quality product. The same is true of Belleek. That company sells throughout the world, particularly in the United States and, I should add, in the Isle of Wight. If anyone visits the Isle of Wight and wants to buy some of its products, I should be pleased to accommodate them. That company has gone through difficult times, but it has risen from the ashes, largely due to the help of a Manchester businessman who settled in Dublin. That is at least one example that goes across the border.
Those things have happened because the LEDU and the Northern Ireland Development Board have played a part. In 1980, they assisted 600 companies, and in 1986


they assisted 1,500 companies. A substantial number of them were new businesses. Thus, not all is gloom. They see the future area of concern as involving helping existing businessess to improve productivity more through the supply of expertise than injections of capital sums. They say that they want a little more money, but that they do not require all that much. That is at least something on the positive side.
I turn now to aircraft and shipbuilding. I have enormous respect for Sir Phillip Foreman and John Parker. I am told that once again things are not all gloomy, because Short Brothers is taking on staff. It has a very useful order from Fokker, which I believe has an order for about 100 aircraft. Short Brothers is doing the wings, and quite a lot of sub-contract work for Boeing. It also has the Tucano. I feel somewhat divided about that. I happen to have a big constituency interest in the matter, and I had hoped that the PC9 would prove to be the winner in that competition. However, I accept that the Tucano is now with Short Brothers. The other day Sir Phillip Foreman assured hon. Members, during a meeting in the other place, that it was a successful aircraft and that the RAF would be well pleased with its new trainer.
It is tragic that Harland and Wolff, probably the most modern and up-to-date shipyard in western Europe, has had to lay off 800 men. That is where most of the money is sought. Nevertheless, we are right to continue to show confidence in Harland and Wolff, because its expertise is very great, and one can hope only that there will be an upturn in the shipbuilding industry, in the not too distant future. At least that yard has some work, which is more than others can say. It is tragic that in Northern Ireland the cigarette industry the synthetic fibre industry and shipbuilding, which have been the main sources of employment for years, should all be on the decline.
I shall not sign an early-day motion saying that we should ban cigarette smoking in certain premises in Northern Ireland. Although I am an anti-smoker, I cannot put another nail in the coffin of the poor old cigarette industry, and so jeopardise jobs in Gallaher and elsewhere.
I welcome the extra money for energy efficiency, particularly given the high energy costs in Northern Ireland. Although electricity costs have fallen slightly recently, due to the fall in the price of oil, costs are still substantially higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I also welcome the new technology board. It is a step in the right direction.
I hope that the Minister takes notice of the reports of the Northern Ireland Economic Council which land on our desks with fair regularity. In the report for October 1986, the report points out that in the past 10 years unemployment has doubled, the proportion of long-term unemployed in the 20 to 24-year-old age group has regrettably doubled, and employment in manufacturing and construction have declined in each case by one third. Moreover, the gap between the average gross domestic product per head of population in Northern Ireland and Great Britain has been enlarged, and the opportunities for argument about the distribution of fresh growth are few. As we also know, emigration from both north and south is extremely high.
The council asked the Government to consider its recommendations. I shall mention three or four of them. It wants greater involvement by the LEDU in the attraction from overseas of small companies. I agree with

the hon. Member for Foyle that the only hope for Northern Ireland, or for places such as the Isle of Wight, lies in smaller businesses getting off the ground through co-operatives and so on. The hon. Member for Foyle has been much more successful than me. I tried to get a co-operative off the ground in the Isle of Wight, but failed abysmally. Nevertheless, I believe that the only hope for the country as a whole lies in smaller firms getting started. They need to be helped in the first two or three years. High interest rates of, say, 15 per cent. are crippling to small industries. However, that is the growth area. If the LEDU can become involved in attracting companies from overseas, all well and good.
The council also wants the development of a common strategic framework with the industrial development institutions and the setting of job targets for the three-year public expenditure programme. Moreover, it wants some mechanism to be introduced for carrying over into the following year unused expenditure on industrial development. That is always a problem for local and central Government, but such a mechanism would seem to be common sense. Perhaps the Minister will comment on those recommendations.
I very much regret that the situation in Northern Ireland is still declining. I believe that Northern Ireland's best hope for the future lies not just in the creation of small industries but in co-operation with the rest of the United Kingdom and across borders. It makes all the sense in the world to me if both north and south can work closely together for the good of their own future.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I apologise to the Minister for not being in the Chamber for his opening remarks. I was somewhat taken by surprise when I saw that this debate on Northern Ireland had started before 6 pm. If I had been a little later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would have avoided your strictures over the limits of this debate.
However, I shall concentrate first on the international fund, which the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) called the American fund. He said that it could be slipped in without any reference to the House. But I assure the Minister that if he feels like slipping it into my constituency, in either small or large doses, I should be very pleased—whether or not there is any reference to the House.
Much has been said about Sir Charles Carter and the reports of the Northern Ireland Economic Council. It is difficult to debate the matter without referring to this year's report. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) rightly referred to those reports. However, I suggest that we should look at self-help in Northern Ireland in terms of promoting self-employment. Unless we can produce more self-employed people, we shall not be able to cope with our massive problems. Other than in small areas and in small ways, that can be done only by stimulating the construction industry. Last year alone, another 2,500 jobs in that industry were lost. According to the council's report, more than half the 1984 labour force will have been shed before the end of the decade.
I believe that self-help schemes should be geared towards stimulating the construction industry. In the last analysis, the north of Ireland relies on two natural resources: grass and agricultural products, which I am not


allowed to discuss now, and its able and willing work force, which has been geared towards the construction industry for some time.
I welcome the additional moneys that will go to the Local Enterprise Development Unit, Harland and Wolff and the Industrial Development Board. The House will know that there are more people unemployed who worked in the manufacturing sector than there are those who are employed in it, and Northern Ireland is the only region in the European Economic Community where that position prevails. When we consider that stark and startling statistic and while trying to promote manufacturing industries, we must consider also how we can create new options. We shall never have the conditions of yesteryear. In future we shall not be able to provide the type of employment that once was available, and that means that we must look for other options.
I suggest that one lies in the notion of self-help, which could be extended to self-employment that is geared towards the construction industry, which is so important in the Northern Ireland economy, and agricultural equipment. It should not be forgotten that the largest industry in Northern Ireland is agriculture and that much of the machinery and many of the tools that the farmers use have been imported. The self-help programme could be geared in both directions.
Gas conversion schemes are being implemented in many towns in Northern Ireland. The schemes have been forced upon Northern Ireland because of the absence of natural gas, and I represent an area which is suffering greatly from this problem. I ask the Minister with responsibilities for economic development to reconsider his attitude towards grants for the conversion schemes. I believe that the grant on offer is £238 for what is termed the cheapest safe alternative. It is remarkable that this alternative is not used by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive because it deems it not to be safe. It knows that one person was killed quite recently as a result of an explosion in Portadown following the implementation of the cheapest safe alternative. I have made approaches at ministerial level because it is clearly a serious matter.
The subsidy that is provided for conversion schemes must be reconsidered. The one in question is not safe and if we continue with it it will be extremely expensive in the last analysis. For example, last week in Newry a mortar attack was planned. If the mortars had exploded, there would have been many more explosions than those in the main centre of explosions. The cheapest alternative within the gas conversion scheme may be cheap now but I suggest that it will be an expensive experiment in the long run.
I wish to make one final plea. Perhaps you will rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall not object to that because I have almost completed my contribution to the debate.
One of the consequences of the conversion schemes is that the people of Northern Ireland are being forced to have heating systems in their homes that they do not want and cannot afford. The stage has been reached when they cannot have an open fire over Christmas. Indeed, they will not be able to have an open fire for 365 days of the year, because some great mind has decided that room heaters are the answer.
I ask the Minister to reconsider this approach. There is unemployment and poverty in the north of Ireland, yet

those who are in receipt of benefit are being asked to pay up to £10 a week to heat their homes. They cannot afford that sort of expenditure and it is nonsense that they are being forced into that position. It would be much more sensible to spend a little more money to allow people to heat their homes with open fires.
It should be realised that there is a 30 per cent. differential between the price of electricity here and the price in Northern Ireland, but the Minister with responsibilities for health and social welfare has refused to take that fact into account when calculating benefits. I ask the Minister of State to take that differential on board and ensure through the actions of the Department of Economic Development and those of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that the people of Northern Ireland are able to heat their homes and provide themselves with basic necessities.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate so early in the evening. The pace at which we have proceeded could be enough to give me an asthma attack. I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), is in her place. If I do become ill, I am sure that she will be glad to help me out.
Within the framework of the debate that you have set for us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall comment briefly on what has been said. I shall begin with the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). We have always welcomed the hon. Gentleman's contributions to our debates on the Anglo-Irish agreement and to the debates that touch upon the island of Ireland as a whole. We have welcomed his many contributions since he resigned from his position in the Government.
The Anglo-lrish agreement is never far from our thoughts, not even when we discuss Estimates and Appropriations for Northern Ireland. The Government may well regret that there were not more consultations prior to the signing of what, after all, was a modest agreement. I urge the hon. Gentleman to turn his positive attention and thoughts to watt will happen following 15 November 1985, rather than drawing attention to the vices, as he sees them, of the agreement. It is the Opposition's submission that the agreement is here to stay. A future Labour Government will not tear it up. Therefore, we and the people of Northern Ireland must come to terms with the agreement, as we must all come to terms with the measure that is before us.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) graces our debates with his cleverly thought out and logical contributions and with the way in which he advances his arguments. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) referred in last year's debate to the comments of the right hon. Gentleman being a form of triennial entertainment. The right hon. Gentleman said also that we go through a sort of pantomime at this time of year. That phrase was a nice one, but it should be said that he treats these matters with the utmost seriousness. The right hon. Member for South Down said that he had done his best, and I am sure that his constituents in Northern Ireland will agree with that. He has done his best from his vantage point, in the interests of his people, in putting forward his views.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) referred to the international fund. We welcome the fund, a remark which turns me to the contribution of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), who I am glad to see in his place. It should be said that he was present for the Appropriation debate last year. We were not necessarily happy with the concept of foreign money, or United States money, but we have come to terms with that. Most of us can come to terms with $50 million. It is a pleasant sum to have for the island of Ireland. The question to be asked is, "Where is the European Economic Community money?"
Can we not have a positive approach to the border? Can we not set up an industrial zone or development zone along the border to cover that area of devastation over the past few years? Is it not sensible to suggest that the international fund direct its operations to those areas? Although we accept the decision of the United States Congress with regard to this money, we are concerned that it is to be directed to profitable but private enterprises. Although we understand the doctrine behind that decision, we consider that a more common use of the money, through local authorities and through Government-inspired schemes, may be more appropriate. We accept the fact that this is a first tranche at $50 million. A further $100 million is to come. If we welcome the first $50 million, most assuredly we shall welcome the rest. Therefore, we wish well the international fund and the board.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne also referred to the lateness of the hour at which we discuss these matters. Tonight, we are a little ahead of ourselves. We endorse his view that the way in which we conduct the business of the House as it relates to Northern Ireland is nothing short of farcical I do not blame the Minister of State, or his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but, of course, it is a travesty that we should discuss important matters dealing with Northern Ireland, which has a population of 1·5 million people, in this way. A future Labour Government will examine these matters with the utmost care. We do not see any progress or improvement in the nature of the business as it comes before the House.
We are always glad to make promises well ahead of a general election. We accepted the Government's decision that Stormont should be abolished. There was a withdrawal of democratic function from the Stormont Assembly and there was no longer a democratic mechanism to study Orders in Council. We welcomed the scrutinising role of the Northern Irish Assembly in relation to Orders in Council. Now that it is no longer performing that scrutiny, Orders in Council may be affirmed or negatived, but cannot be altered, even if they contain the most glaring administrative errors. We shall examine very carefully the setting up of a Standing Committee on which the Government of the day have a majority. There could be proper debates on orders, and valid points could be made by Members of Parliament. Those valid points could be incorporated into the text of any legislation dealing with Northern Ireland. There is already a Committee that considers Northern Ireland affairs, but it does not exist in the form that we envisage.
We also envisage the creation of a Select Committee for Northern Ireland, with power to review not only the Anglo-Irish agreement, which will be of interest to the hon. Members for Eastbourne and for Epping Forest, but

various aspects of the Northern Ireland Committee. Such a Committee might have the powers of the customary Commons Select Committee. It may examine the order that we have before us. We might consider how to incorporate this order and the various elements of it into the workings of a Select Committee. That Select Committee might also be able to cross-examine witnesses, ranging from the Secretary of State down, and call for documents.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are going wide of the issue before the House. He should come back to it.

Mr. Bell: It is rather like Sunday cricket. The rules for wides are somewhat different from those for cricket during the week. I shall bring the debate within the purview, as you have so rightly said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the order.
Although we are debating the order, debates on Northern Ireland issues could be held at regular intervals on the Floor of the House, and in waking hours, rather than late at night. That point was made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West. We shall look for foresight and diplomatic skill on the part of the Unionist leadership. It might lead them to understand that, as Ernest Marples once said to me. "A time of crisis is a time of opportunity". We look forward to the day when the Unionists feel that the time of crisis has passed and the time of opportunity is at hand.
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh mentioned shipbuilding carried out by Harland and Wolff. He and I have constituents who have suffered from the closure of Smith's Dock. We understand the nature of the local economy and the impact of this type of decision. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) mentioned Japanese shipping. We do not absolve the Government of their responsibility of creating the conditions in the shipbuilding industry that have led to redundancies. After all, a Conservative Government hived off Navy shipbuilding from civil shipbuilding. A Conservative Government also allowed British shipowners to build most of their merchant vessels abroad. Therefore, the Government cannot abdicate their responsibility for those matters.
On the subject of Harland and Wolff, which is within the purview of the order, I note the absence of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). I dislike criticising those who are absent, but it is fair, apparently, for the hon. Gentleman to strut his moment on the stage of the Republic of Ireland, but not to grace our proceedings with his presence when we deal with the future of Harland and Wolff and the loss of 800 jobs in his constituency.
We associate ourselves with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). He said that the co-operative agency received £50,000. That amount is not sufficient. We shall press the Government for a more liberal financial approach to the problems that face the co-operative agency.
On Tuesday, I was glad to sit on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments which dealt with Enterprise Ulster. Enterprise Ulster was renewed. We are grateful to the present Minister of State and his colleagues on the Front Bench who are responsible for Northern Ireland affairs. The note that we received clearly stated that the


former Minister of State looked upon Enterprise Ulster with a view to putting it to sleep. More than 1,800 jobs were at stake as a consequence of the review. I am glad that the Government did not take that view. The powers of Enterprise Ulster were extended and 1,800 jobs have been saved. I welcome the efforts of the Minister of State and his team in ensuring that those jobs were saved.
In the context of the order, we see a clear understanding on the part of the Government about the nature of the mixed economy. The frontiers of the mixed economy in Northern Ireland are not so far to the right as they are in the rest of the United Kingdom. We welcome the importance that the Government give to the shipbuilding and aircraft industries, as is reflected in the order.
I notice that, so far, the Government's drive for privatisation has not included Shorts. If Sid has been seen anywhere at all of late, it has not been in Northern Ireland. Each year, for the past few years—certainly since 1981—we have been told that Shorts will soon be privatised. A specialist firm was appointed which advised the Government on the prospects of selling Shorts Brothers to the private sector. The former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the present Home Secretary, at one time hoped that there would be a share flotation similar to that of British Telecom. Tonight, the Minister referred to the sudden fall in Shorts' profitability. The 1985–86 results, which were published recently, show such a massive drop that the Belfast Telegraph described them as
a massive reversal of the trend towards full profitability".
The losses amounted to £35 million. We take no comfort from those figures. Short Brothers should not be privatised. We welcome the clear delineation of the mixed economy frontier of it as applies to Shorts. We wish the firm well in the development of its business in aircraft, air structures and guided missiles.
The Secretary of State, in a recent written answer, told us how the Government have authorised an external funding limit of £36 million to cover the period 1 April 1986 to 31 March 1987. He also stated the Government's concern at the downturn in Shorts' financial performance in 1985–86. Tonight the Minister of State wished Shorts an early return to profitability.
The Secretary of State also said in his written answer that the Government would be reviewing shortly the strategic plans for the business of Shorts. While the Minister of State could not be expected to give a reply tonight, I am sure that he would wish to take an early opportunity to inform the House of the results and consequences of that review.
We welcome the statement of Sir Philip Foreman that Shorts is committed to the affirmative action programme monitored by the Fair Employment Agency. I should say in parenthesis that we welcome the issuing of rules of conduct for firms falling within the purview of that agency.
Sir Philip Foreman is anxious to demonstrate that Shorts' employment policy is fair and on an equitable basis. However, I disagree with him when he states that the time that management spend on proving that point detracts from the company's overall sales effort. With the utmost respect to him, I should point out that, as W. Somerset Maugham once wrote in a book called "Catalina", the wise man takes the world as it is and not as it might be.
The wise man must take into account in the United States the Irish National Caucus, which recently sought to compel the United States air force to cancel options on 48 Shorts Sherpa aircraft. No hon. Member believes that the way to tackle the problem of discrimination in Northern Ireland is to reduce order books there and to induce further discrimination—the discrimination between those in work and those out of work. That is not the proper course of action to fight discrimination in Shorts.
The worst discrimination is where people are made unemployed by policies which may be made by the Government or exterior forces. That kind of discrimination is as bad as the religious discrimination that we see in Northern Ireland. Therefore, our message to Shorts is to seek an early return to profitability, to continue the expansion of its order book, to maintain a high profile in rooting out discrimination and to continue as one of its goals the attack on discrimination. We in the Labour party will certainly press and probe the company and the Government on that issue.
If I understood the Minister correctly, there is a provision in the order to cover the cost of the 800 job losses at Harland and Wolff. We understand the nature of the downturn in world shipping, to which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred. No one understands better than me and the hon. Member for Langbaurgh the consequences of redundancy for ordinary people who in their working lives have acquired skills and invested hours in their place of work, and who find themselves cast aside with an uncertain future for themselves and their children. We would be most distressed if we felt for a moment that those who lose their work at Harland and Wolff would be condemned to spend the rest of their working lives on street corners, on their hunkers as in the thirties. I am sure that the Minister would not wish that to happen. Therefore, we ask the Government to ensure as best they can the retraining of those who will lose their jobs to find work for them and to give the Northern Ireland community as a whole the feeling that there is something to be gained from their policies.
We in the Labour party cannot, and do not, associate ourselves with the Government's policies overall. We welcome the fact that more money is being spent in Northern Ireland. Certainly, more money goes into Northern Ireland than into the Principality of Wales and Scotland, or, as the hon. Member for Langbaurgh knows and understands, into Cleveland, which we both represent. We shall not bless the Government's monetarist policies or give the Government a sense of relief that they can look forward with equanimity to the next Appropriation order without hostility from the Opposition.
We accept that we in the Opposition have a greater role to play than usual because of the absence of Unionist Members, with the honourable exception of the right hon. Member for South Down. We take on ourselves the burden of responsibility for the people of Northern Ireland in relation to shipbuilding, the aircraft industry, industry in general, the environment and hospitals. We shall continue to press and probe the Government on all those issues with a view to eliciting information, easing the position of those who live there and giving those in Northern Ireland the sense that a future Labour Government would have the competence and confidence to govern Northern Ireland differently from the way in which it is at present governed.

Mr. Scott: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply. Normally my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), would have replied to the debate as he is responsible for the Department of Economic Development. However, he is spending this week in the United States on a tour, meeting industrialists, representatives of the Administration and others, in search of investment and orders on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland.
Some of the points raised, especially those raised by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), were particularly for my hon. Friend's consideration and I shall ensure that on his return he has a note of them so that he can turn his attention to them. The hon. Gentleman will notice that for two of his points we have present the Northern Ireland Minister responsible for both the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health and Social Services. No doubt he will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said.
First, I shall deal with the question of why we are having the debate this evening. That matter was touched on by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and at some length by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), who announced his familiar conspiracy theory. Northern Ireland has had a separate Consolidated Fund for over 60 years. There is no secret or hidden reason why the Government persist with that arrangement. Our belief is that Northern Ireland's special needs and problems will be best met by a system of devolved government. I recognise that not every hon. Member accepts that, but it is the Government's view and Parliament as a whole has accepted and embodied it in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and the Northern Ireland Act 1982. In that light, the maintenance of a separate Consolidated Fund so that a future devolved Administration can have proper control over the resources they spend is a sensible way to proceed.
Several hon. Members spoke about our legislative arrangements. I shall ensure that the attention of our business managers is drawn to those matters. I have my own feelings about the time at which Northern Ireland business is considered in the House. It is open to hon. Members to make their representations through the usual channels about the handling of business and, perhaps, about the greater use of the Northern Ireland Committee. It is worth recalling that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the leaders of the two Unionist parties when she met them on 25 February that she was ready in particular to discuss the arrangements for handling Northern Ireland business in Parliament. That offer remains open and I urge them to take it up.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West and other hon. Members alluded to the level of unemployment that we must endure in Northern Ireland. We cannot counter unemployment by Government action alone. We need efficient, competitive and innovative employers in Northern Ireland if we are to tackle the problem. I do not see the outlook for unemployment in Northern Ireland as being particularly encouraging at present. There are still industries under threat and they may have to endure further redundancies.
The visit of my hon. Friend the Minister to the United States this week is indicative of our effort to attract inward investment. I absolutely agree that, although we should ever be alert for opportunity to attract inward investment in Northern Ireland, our future thrust of policies should be very much in the area of encouraging small firms, including self-help operations, and depending on them to provide the jobs that Northern Ireland so desperately needs.
Through our policies, we shall aim to encourage more people to set up in business, to facilitate the growth of existing small businesses, and to stimulate economic activity in communities through local enterprise programmes. In addition, we will have to help with special schemes for the retraining of those who become unemployed. The enterprise allowance scheme, action for community employment scheme and others also have a role to play in providing employment for the people of the Province.
I share the concern expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West. However, he is less than fair in his questioning of the Government's commitment to tackle the economic problems facing Northern Ireland. Identifiable public expenditure in Northern Ireland on a per capita basis is some 40 per cent. higher than in the United Kingdom as a whole. It is 39 per cent. higher than in Wales and 21 per cent. higher than in Scotland. That is a level of expenditure that reflects the Government's attempts to meet the real needs of Northern Ireland, and the Government's commitment is commendable.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West referred to lignite. I believe that the development of lignite could have major economic benefits. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have set up opportunities for consultation and for assessing the benefits that could flow from lignite and the way that these could best be tackled. I can assure him absolutely that, as and when the reports are produced, there will be a public inquiry in East Tyrone into the environmental effects. Apart from the immediate effects of the construction of any minemouth power plant—environmental action could be taken about that—the effect on the surrounding environment is likely to be minimal. That matter must be discussed when a public inquiry is held.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne raised the problems faced by Harland and Wolff. I must stress that these problems have nothing to do with the Anglo-Irish agreement. The bulk of the money is going to Harland and Wolff to reflect the problems encountered by shipbuilders in England, Scotland and throughout western Europe. Even Japan, which has led shipbuilding in the past few years, suffered capacity cuts throughout last year. It is less than fair of my hon. Friend to relate the requirement for Harland and Wolff to the Anglo-Irish agreement.

Mr. Gow: I think that my hon. Friend will agree when he reads the Official Report tomorrow that at no stage in my speech did I mention Harland and Wolff.

Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend claimed that the reason that I had to come to the House today was because of the Anglo-Irish agreement and the unrest. I am simply saying that my purpose in coming to the House today is to find money for Harland and Wolff and other commendable activities. That is not related to the Anglo-Irish agreement.
The other major service for which funds are being sought is in respect of standard capital grants. Some £12 million is directed there. That is good news because it reflects substantial investment by firms within Northern Ireland in recent times. Nor do I think that high levels of unemployment in Northern Ireland have anything to do with the effects of the Anglo-Irish agreement. Unemployment has consistently been higher in the Province than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is also misleading to suggest that industrial output in Northern Ireland has suffered since the agreement. Output has continued to grow over the past 12 months and manufacturing output has now recovered to its 1980 level.
Several hon. Members raised the question of the international fund for Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) specifically asked about opportunities to debate that fund. He may be aware that the order establishing the fund was laid before Parliament in the usual way. An Order in Council under the International Organisations Act 1968 went before a Standing Committee where there was an opportunity for debate and the order was debated in the other place.
I would like to consider the question of additionality.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Was it not the case for immunities for those serving on the fund that was brought before the House?

Mr. Scott: There was more than one order connected with the establishment of the fund and one certainly had that effect.
I can give an absolute assurance that any disbursements from the international fund will be completely additional to public expenditure in the Province. The purpose to which the fund will be used is a matter for the board of the fund and that is an independent body. Let me make it absolutely clear that the Government have welcomed the establishment of the fund and the degree of international support attracted by the Anglo-Irish agreement.

Mr. Bell: The question of additionality arises in relation to the Common Market money that is still being negotiated. That issue has attracted the attention of the House. Can the Minister give any comment on the question of additionality in the event of money coming from the European Economic Community?

Mr. Scott: We will have to deal with that problem if and when the European Community decides to make any disbursements. It will depend on the terms upon which any such offer might be made.
No money has yet been allocated out of the international fund. If the board of the fund allocates money in respect of services that are undertaken by central Government, of course I would have to seek agreement of the House to such payments being appropriated in aid of the services in question. That would of course provide an opportunity for debate on such payments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh expressed concern about Harland and Wolff. The provision that is being sought is meant to cover redundancy costs, together with losses of working capital, and to establish Harland and Wolff Enterprises for retraining and re-employment of workers. None of the money is need for the auxiliary oiler replenishment, on which work has not yet commenced. I absolutely assure the House that the tender contained no subsidy whatsoever and that the conditions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced to the House on 24 April will apply absolutely.
We have had a debate that has ranged somewhat wider than we might have expected on this order. In a sense, the order is peripheral to the main thrust of the economic future of Northen Ireland. We have already announced the global outturn or public expenditure for the coming financial year for Northern Ireland. There will be an increase of 6 per cent. over the existing financial year's provision. That means a 2 per cent. increase, in real terms, for Northern Ireland. That clearly demonstrates the Government's commitment to the Province and to tackling the problems that Northern Ireland faces. Tonight we need money, partly to help Harland and Wolff through a difficult time and partly to reinforce the efforts to provide jobs in Northern Ireland and also to respond to many extra jobs that have already been created. I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Health (Northern Ireland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): I beg to move,
That the draft Health and Personal Social Services and Public Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 5th November, in the last Session of Parliament, he approved.
I am sorry to learn that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) has had an attack of asthma. I can only hope that it is not so bad that he is now in need of mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, because the Minister for Health in England has now left the Chamber and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough would probably have to put up with the Minister with responsibility for health in Northern Ireland. I can understand his worry about that.
The House will appreciate that this order contains a wide range of miscellaneous amendments to legislation concerning the health and personal social services and public health. Articles 3 to 14 of the order make a number of amendments to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, dealing with such matters as the dissolution of the Health and Social Services Council, arrangements for medical and dental practitioners who are suspended, and charges for accommodation. I do not propose to describe these amendments individually in my opening remarks, but if any hon. Members wish to raise points I will, of course, try to deal with them during my reply, if I should catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I shall therefore concentrate my remarks on the two remaining aspects of the draft order. The first concerns the tighter controls which we propose to introduce over the sale of tobacco products to children, under article 15. The second concerns the provisions we are introducing in articles 16 to 18 to control the spread of infectious diseases in the Province and bring our legislation into line with that in the remainder of Great Britain.
Article 15 amends the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 and further restricts the sale of tobacco to the young. Many people and organisations have expressed concern at the amount of cigarette smoking by children in the Province. A survey sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Services in conjuction with the Ulster Cancer Foundation and carried out in 1983 showed that children in the Province aged 11 to 15 smoked £2,340,000 worth of cigarettes a year—that is, 39 million cigarettes—and that 24 per cent. of fifth-year pupils at secondary school smoked regularly. Further concern has been aroused by the manufacture and sale of new tobacco products, such as Skoal Bandits, which could be attractive to children and which constitute a considerable health hazard.
Article 15 strengthens controls on the sale of tobacco to young people in three important respects. First, it makes it an offence to sell any tobacco products to children and removes the seller's defence that he did not know that the tobacco was for the youngsters' use. Secondly, the definition of tobacco is extended to include products for sucking, chewing or sniffing. That will cover products such as Skoal Bandits. Thirdly, it increases control over automatic vending machines. In future, if it is proved that a vending machine selling tobacco is being extensively used by children, courts will be required to order the owner to prevent this or to remove the machine.

These amendments match the provisions in the Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986 which was sponsored by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). I will ensure that these amendments are brought to the attention of the police.
The remaining three articles amend the Public Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 and are intended to strengthen controls available in Northern Ireland to reduce the spread of infectious disease. The main interest to the House will be how these relate to AIDS, and I shall return to that later.
Article 17 gives powers to make regulations dealing with health risks which may arise from the arrival of ships or aircraft. Similar powers were originally contained in United Kingdom legislation, but certain provisions have now become transferred or reserved matters and new powers must be provided in Northern Ireland legislation. Secondly, article 17 gives the Department power to make regulations which could cover notifiable and other diseases.
Article 18 makes provision for the compulsory removal to or detention in hospital of people suffering from notifiable diseases. There are no existing powers, but there may be rare and very exceptional circumstances in which the clinical condition of a patient suffering from a notifiable disease places him in a dangerously infectious state, yet he refuses medical care and admission to hospital or to remain in hospital. In those circumstances, the new provisions in article 18 of the order empower health and social services boards to apply to a resident magistrate to make an order for the removal to or detention in hospital of someone with a notifiable disease if it is considered that there is a serious risk of infection to others.

Mr. William Cash: My hon. Friend said that he would come to the question of AIDS. Is he making a distinction between that and the procedure for notifiable diseases, or is he saying that AIDS is to become a notifiable disease? I did not quite follow his argument.

Mr. Needham: If my hon. Friend will bear with me for a moment, I shall come to the point that he has raised.
The new powers will not be used in respect of the many notifiable diseases which do not present a danger—for example, whooping cough and measles. A resident magistrate will decide, on the application of the health and social services board, whether a person suffering from a notifiable disease presents a serious risk of infection. If the magistrate is satisfied that that is the case, he will make an order removing the person to hospital or detaining him in hospital for a specified period.
I come now to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). Notifiable diseases are specified in the schedule to the Public Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 and all are infectious diseases, such as infective hepatitis, typhoid, dysentery, whooping cough and measles. Various provisions in the 1967 Act enable controls to be applied to restrict the spread of notifiable diseases.
Finally, I should like to deal with the amendments in articles 17 and 18 as they affect AIDS. Those amendments match provisions in the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 and will bring about a common policy within the United Kingdom for the control of AIDS. It is the intention to make regulations under article 17, applying to AIDS some of the controls on notifiable diseases. Among


these will be the new powers in article 18 for removal to and detention in hospital. The controls applied to AIDS will be similar to those already applying in Great Britain. I must make it clear that this order does not make AIDS a notifiable disease, and it is not the intention to do so. There is a real risk that people suffering from AIDS might be reluctant to seek medical help if the disease were to be made notifiable.
The draft order represents an important contribution to protecting public health in Northern Ireland, not only in terms of additional safeguards against disease but in reducing the risk to children from tobacco. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Peter Archer: The Minister, with his customary clarity, has explained that the order has two basic purposes—to bring the law of Northern Ireland more closely into line with that of the United Kingdom and to provide the authorities with the powers to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, together with some of the other matters to which he referred. The whole House will approve both those purposes and, with certain reservations to which I shall refer in a moment, the Opposition welcome the order.
I find article 11 a little puzzling. The explanatory memorandum states:
Article 11 repeals the statutory obligation of the Department, Board, Central Services Agency and the Training Council to produce annual reports
but it fails to explain why. The Minister did not explain, either, but that omission may be rectified later. It is easy to argue that there are too many authorities producing too many annual reports and that we are all submerged beneath too much paper.
In this instance, however, we are dealing with a system which is not, in essence, controlled by elected representatives. The boards are not elected. They are not like local authorities in which decisions, achievements and failures are scrutinised by councillors who are themselves liable to be approached by members of the public. Moreover, Northern Ireland is governed by the system of direct rule, if "system" is the appropriate word, so not only are the boards not elected, but they are responsible to or monitored by an authority which itself is not elected. If the public are to have any prospect of knowing what is going on, it is important that those who run the system should at least have to formulate an account of what they have been doing and why. I should have thought that it would be a healthy exercise for them. I hope that the Minister will explain the thinking behind the proposal, if indeed there was any.
The Minister correctly diagnosed that some hon. Members would like to know a little more about articles 16 to 18. I am troubled by the second paragraph of the explanatory memorandum. We are told:
The main purpose of the draft order is to strengthen the controls available in Northern Ireland to reduce the spread of infectious diseases so that they are more closely comparable with those available elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
So far, so good, but it goes on:
This would facilitate a common policy for the control of certain diseases, in particular Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).

That seems to be the thrust behind what is happening. Article 17 empowers the Department to make regulations,
with a view to the treatment of persons affected with any epidemic, endemic or infectious disease and for preventing spread of such diseases".
There is also something about the spread of diseases on vessels. That is a wide power and is vested in some constitutional entity called "the Department" and not in the Secretary of State or in any Minister. It is clear that the Department does not even need to consult the Secretary of State except in relation to regulations affecting vessels. In itself, that is rather a wide power and it affects people in all sorts of ways. Of course we all appreciate the necessity for rules for that purpose.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman fallen into the trap in the 1974 Act and failed to write in "Secretary of State" wherever he reads "Department" in one of these orders?

Mr. Archer: If I have overlooked a provision of that kind, I am grateful for the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman. If he says that "the Department" means "the Secretary of State", I am grateful for his guidance and no doubt he will elaborate on the point later in the debate. But if that is the case, why are we not told "Secretary of State"? That would set everyone's mind at rest and we would not need to refer back to the 1974 Act and would not have all this legislation by reference. Perhaps one day the Department will say what it means.

Mr. Cash: The right hon. and learned Gentleman might care to refer to the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1974 because that will solve his problem.

Mr. Archer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but a lot of people will have to operate these regulations not in a library with the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1984 and a row of textbooks to hand but out there where it counts. Perhaps the Minister will take this exchange to heart because it would be much easier if the regulations said what they meant and we knew who had power to do what.
We then come to some rather startling words. In article 17, new section 2A(2) of the Public Health Act says:
Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the Department"—
apparently that means the Secretary of State—
may by any such regulations apply, with or without modifications, to any disease to which the regulations relate any enactment relating to the notification of disease or to notifiable or infectious diseases.
Perhaps there is some other intermediate instrument of construction that I have missed, but, on the face of it, the Department is authorised to decide the diseases to which the regulations are to relate. Clearly, it is intended that the Department shall be entitled to apply those powers to diseases which are not normally thought of as infectious or as notifiable. It also seems to have a wide if not absolute discretion about what diseases they shall be. I would be grateful for the further guidance of the hon. Gentlemen who intervened, but one day there may arise a king who knew not Joseph and we may find some Minister who wants to apply these regulations to something quite outside anything spoken about in this debate. One wonders why the powers must be quite so wide. However, that is not our real worry.
I looked to see what the position is in Britain. As I understand it, the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act


1984 confers wide powers on the Secretary of State and on local authorities to deal with infectious diseases. They may order someone to stay away from work, they may order people to keep their children away from school, they keep children out of places of entertainment, close infectious premises whether they are industrial or used for entertainment, and a justice of the peace is empowered to subject a person to a medical examination whether that person likes it or not or to order the person to be detained in hospital.
All that clearly restricts the freedom of individuals and might subject them to considerable inconvenience. Clearly, there may be good reasons for that and various considerations have to be placed in the balance. The decision must depend upon the nature of the disease and the seriousness of the consequences if it spreads upon the nature of the inhibitions on the freedom of the person concerned for preventing the spread of the disease.
The Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations 1985 apply a wide range of these powers to deal with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, AIDS. Regulation 3(2) of those regulations provides for the compulsory detention in hospital specifically of someone suffering from AIDS. It does not apply some other power to AIDS, but provides a power which relates only and uniquely to AIDS.
So far as I am able to ascertain, those regulations were not debated. Perhaps the Minister can tell us a little about the powers in those regulations. Have any of them been used and if so in what circumstances? I was told of one case in Manchester of a person in hospital with AIDS being served with the order when apparently all he had sought to do was to spend what would probably be his last weekend on earth in his own home.
I raise these matters because, clearly, some serious considerations arise. If these provisions are effective and make an effective contribution to preventing the spread of AIDS, that is probably a decisive argument in their favour. But AIDS is not what we normally understand by the terms "infectious disease". We are told by those who know that there is no danger of anyone who carries AIDS communicating the disease simply by going about in public places. We are told that no one will contract AIDS simply because he has passed physically close to a carrier.
Why should someone with AIDS be confined to a hospital? If such a person says that he proposes to act in a sexually promiscuous way or if for some psychological reason he wants to spread the disease, it may be a different matter. But in the absence of such a factor, to the great misfortune of a person affected by AIDS we seem to be adding a further misfortune which does not make any obvious contribution to restricting its spread.
Is it proposed that people suffering from AIDS should normally be forcibly removed to hospital in the absence of any other factor? Who will decide who is to be subjected to these powers? Will it be the environmental health officers, for whom I have great respect? If it is, to whom will they be answerable and who will decide if there is a dispute about the matter?
The House would fail to address some important issues affecting the rights of people if it did not ask these questions, especially because the powers are to be conferred in such apparently wide terms. I raise these matters not because they arise directly from this order. Subject to the two matters that I have raised, we have no complaints about the order. But the Government may

subsequently have to justify the next step which, according to the Minister and the memorandum, is now being contemplated. We will not divide the House on this issue, but I hope that the Minister can tell us more about the powers, because the argument for the proposal in such wide terms is not self-evident.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is a miscellaneous order and comment upon it is therefore necessarily also miscellaneous. It may be convenient to the Minister if I designate first those articles with which I am not merely in agreement but in enthusiastic agreement. I will then come to the articles that I do not like and finish with the articles on which I and perhaps the House would welcome further explanation.
First, I shall list the things that I like. I like article 5. It is curious that we have had to wait for article 5 for the registration of common lodging houses to be brought into force. Certainly the registration process in relation to common lodging houses, like that in relation to old people's homes privately provided, is not merely an important safeguard but a gentle kind of instrument which results in the improvement of conditions generally. I am glad that at last article 5 will enable that power to be effectively exercised.
I like article 9. Although it is somewhat obscure, I understand that it will have the effect of facilitating short-term assessments of persons for admission to old people's homes, and also short-term stays in those homes. In so far as it does that, it will certainly be beneficial.
A recurrent tragedy with which hon. Members are confronted in their constituencies is that of old persons, still managing in difficult circumstances and sometimes in isolation, with the self-sacrificing assistance of others, usually relatives, but offering those relatives no relief whatsoever—a situation from which there seemed often no escape for any of the parties.
If short-term stays are rendered easier as a result of the facilitated assessment that the article provides, I hope that it will more often be possible to persuade the old person to enter a home temporarily while those normally responsible for his or her care get some opportunity for recuperation and recovery.
Such a stay may also assist the transition across that awful gulf between one's own home and, what is also known as a home, a residential home. That is a step before which too many elderly people, to their own disadvantage, hesitate for too long. Therefore, I commend and welcome what is achieved by article 9.
I also like article 15, which was one of the two articles to which the Minister referred. I like the fact that it brings in tobacco substitutes and other products, and I especially like the fact that it will be impossible in future for a vendor of those items to say that he "didna ken". It will not be possible for the boy or girl, as the case may be, to say that she "wants it for her mum or dad". The products simply cannot be supplied to a person under the age of 16 without a breach of the law. The only remaining loophole, presumably, will be if the vendor pretends that he does not know the age of the person; but there are means of following up and dealing with that evasion. So a welcome strengthening of the law for the protection of young people has been provided by article 15.
That ends my catalogue of enthusiastic approval, not necessarily excluding the articles, which I have not mentioned, but which I recognise as necessary.
I come to those articles that I do not like. I do not like article 6 which is a curious article. A Department is in possession of a piece of land and wishes to dispose of it. It cannot find a ready buyer for that land, except in association with a contiguous—I believe it is called "adjacent" here—piece of land. Therefore, the Department is given power to purchase the adjacent piece of land in order to sell both together, either more easily or more advantageously.
I simply wonder whether that is a necessary provision. It seems a strange one to come from a Government ideologically averse from unnecessary vesting of land: for that is the process we are discussing. I understand that the acquisition of land which is conferred is voluntary; nevertheless, if the Department can voluntarily acquire area B which is adjacent to area A which it already owns, why on earth cannot the potential purchaser of area A understand that he can also buy area B and, therefore, take area A off the hands of the Department? I wonder if this is not a bureaucratic provision that has been put in for convenience and is not strictly necessary. I hope that I shall have the Minister's agreement in saying that, as far as I am concerned, public acquisition of land, unless strictly necessary, is anathema.
My other objection is to article 16, which substitutes departmental determination for prescription by regulation. In general, it is bad practice, where an existing law requires a regulation to be made, to wipe out the regulation-making power and substitute mere determination. It is true that regulations which would be prayable elsewhere are not prayable under the present constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, the mere making of a statutory instrument imposes a certain discipline upon those who make it, especially as in Northern Ireland we have an excellent Examiner of Statutory Instruments, whose successive reports we peruse with the same excitement as we once used to peruse the Boy's Own Paper Thanks to that assistance, I have no doubt that the necessity of making a regulation sharpens the minds of officials and Ministers much more than the power just to issue a determination. I do not like article 16, therefore, and I go on record as disliking it.
Now for my questions. I was surprised that the Minister did not offer the House at any rate a brief explanation of article 7, namely, the arrangements for general medical practitioners whose registration is suspended. To the untutored student, it appears as though that makes a provision for general medical practitioners whose registration is suspended to go on operating.

Mr. Needham: indicated dissent.

Mr. Powell: I am glad to receive a negative signal from the Minister, but I should be grateful—and I suspect that other hon. Members would be grateful—if he could explain at some little length how article 7 will work and why it is necessary.
I now turn to the area traversed by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), covering articles 16 to 18, especially article 17. Studying, as I noticed that he has studied, the explanatory memorandum with

more than usual care, I came across a constitutional curiosity, which I hope the Minister can clear up. It is referred to in the words:
Since certain public health controls on vessels and aircraft have now become reserved or transferred matters".
I would like to know when and how they became reserved or transferred matters. I think I guess—but guessing is not good enough—that under the old Stormont constitution those powers were not vested in the Government of Northern Ireland and were in consequence exercised under United Kingdom powers. Curiously, it looks as though somehow under the 1973 and 1982 Acts an odd power or two that was not embraced within the capabilities of the Stormont regime got made available for a sort of administration which does not exist and which many of us think it would be better never did exist. Perhaps the Minister could clear up that point of curiosity.
More important is the general operation of the regulations now that they have been rendered uniform with the powers existing in the rest of the United Kingdom. They are extremely onerous upon the individuals to whom they would be occasionally applied as I should like to illustrate by a query for which I should be grateful to have the Minister's answer.
The orders for dentention in hospital are made for a period. That period can be extended. Can it really be the case that an order made for a period could be indefinitely extended? Somewhere in the legislation there must surely be a superior power of appeal or review. I hope that the Minister will have been sufficiently briefed to be able to reassure the House that it will not rest simply with a magistrate making the initial orders and also making the renewal orders provided for in the regulation but that there is available somewhere a superior authority.
Those who are admirers of Surtees will recall how that redoubtable foxhunter, John Jorrocks, once found himself in a mental institution, from which he was liberated only by the visitation powers of the Lord Chancellor. By his replies to questions on foxhunting he succeeded in persuading the Lord Chancellor that he was sane, whereupon the Lord Chancellor, fortunately for him and the rest of us, ordered his release. There must be somebody who, in relation to this order, can perform the same liberating act as the Lord Chancellor did for the redoubtable John Jorrocks.

Mr. William Cash: Are there provisions equivalent to those in article 15 for the United Kingdom? In other words, do such provisions already apply in Britain? I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to answer that question sooner or later. That matter raises important questions which could apply to Britain.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his explanation of the difference between those provisions which apply to notifiable diseases and those which apply to AIDS. I recall tabling an early-day motion in 1984 on AIDS and I have followed that subject with some interest and grave anxiety for some time. I have in my constituency a consultant who specialises in sexually transmitted diseases and he was good enough to spend a couple of hours with me on that subject. Therefore, I am glad to discover that the regulations in article 17 will clearly help those in Northern Ireland who tragically suffer from AIDS.
Finally, I want to put it on record that the absence of Members from Northern Ireland—apart from the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—when we are discussing a matter such as AIDS which is of such great importance to public health in Northern Ireland is a great shame.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I shall confine my comments to three articles in the order.
I welcome article 5 on common lodging houses. When I first began to deal with the problem of common lodging houses I was astounded that such legislation simply did not exist, and when I inquired into it further I was appalled at the Dickensian arrangements that exist. I have details of cases which I shall give privately to the Minister, but in one lodging house in my constituency, for which the DHSS is paying, four women and three children are living in one room. In another, seven men are dwelling in one room. That shows how much that provision is to be welcomed. It is much overdue and must be ruthlessly enforced.
I have one slight reservation. Article 5 says:
The Department may, by regulations, make provision with respect to common lodging-houses, and any such regulation shall include provisions"—
this is where I have a slight worry—
for the registration of common lodging-houses by Health and Social Services Boards".
I ask the Minister most sincerely to ensure that such an inspection is thorough and rigorous. It is appalling to realise what public money is being used for. People coming to my surgeries and clinics have told me about the sheer Dickensian—I can only call it that—circumstances in which they live. I hope that the Minister will ensure that the inspection is the most thorough and rigorous possible.
I do not want to stray into another area, but I am concerned about the performance of area boards in assessing medical factors, especially in relation to housing allocations and transfers. There is a distinct lack of thoroughness and rigorousness in establishing a person's medical needs. When this provision is approved, I hope that the Minister will ensure that it sticks, and the only way to do that is for such an inspection to be carried out on at least a quarterly basis. A yearly inspection will not suffice. It should be carried out by someone from the board who has the power to be as ruthless as is humanly possible. Such a person should be supported in every way by the Department to ensure that what is happening today no longer happens.
I also have slight worries about article 40(b) in relation to rights of appeal. That appears to be the type of appeal that is available to private nursing homes at present. I hope that the Minister will tell me if that is the case. I am worried about some private nursing homes, the way in which they operate, and the way in which they are able to win their cases. From cases in the courts it is clear that the wool has been pulled over the eyes of the people from the health boards, and there is even more opportunity for that in relation to lodging houses.
I am slightly worried and confused about article 9—the limitation of charge for accommodation to minimum rate in relation to the intervening period. I understand and appreciate the points made by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). Looking at it from the other

end of the spectrum, I am worried about the number of homeless young people who live in lodging houses. That number is increasing enormously. Two weeks ago there was a substantial lobby of Parliament by the young homeless. I wonder how their position will be affected by article 9. I may be reading it wrongly and being slightly too pessimistic, but there is a growing problem with the young homeless, for whom this provision may not be able to cater in the way that it caters for old people and those who may have to enter residential homes for a period.
With regard to article 11, I fail to understand how we can avoid having the type of annual report that we have always had in the past. There may be some substitute. I do not know.
I should like to leave the Minister with one thought that I trust he will take on board. During the past five weeks in my constituency there have been five different explosions—five different attacks. On one day during that period no acute emergency ambulance service was available. We have discussed this problem in great depth with the area board and those responsible for the ambulance service. This lack of provision has been substantiated by the unions, and it is causing them and myself great concern. If we cannot ensure that we have proper ambulance cover in this type of situation, I cannot for the life of me understand how we can do away with the annual report. It provides the only basis on which to assess the situation in relation to those problems.

Mr. Needham: One of the joys of my present job is to reply to a number of detailed and highly articulate questions put on unamendable orders, covering miscellaneous provisions stretching from here to infinity. It is an intellectual test for which my predecessor, with his Balliol background, was perhaps better equipped than I am with the university of life degree as the only degree around my shoulders. I shall try to wade through as best I can and I am sure that hon. Members will interrupt me as I go on if they feel I have not adequately answered their questions.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) questioned why, under article 11, the Government are suggesting that annual reports should not be produced. We have decided not to continue these reports because they require a great deal of work. Those right hon. and hon. Members who have read reports will be aware of just how much detail goes into them, and that is a waste of resources.
I hope that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) will not mind my saying that if no ambulance cover had been available last week when tragic events took place in Newry I do not believe that the annual report would necessarily highlight that problem. Some effective administrative and technical action would have to be taken to make sure that that service was provided at all times.

Mr. Mallon: I think that there is some confusion. I was not talking about the events of last week. I should like to take the opportunity to compliment the ambulance service, the fire brigade and all the emergency services on the tremendous job that they did during the events of last week. What I said was that during the past five weeks there had been five explosions and that on one specific night there was no ambulance cover.

Mr. Needham: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. However, that does not alter the fact that I am not convinced that annual reports are necessarily the best way in which to publicise such a problem. I feel that the hon. Gentleman would be a much better publicist of that problem than would any annual report.
It is necessary to point out how the health boards make facts and statistics available to the public. The Department has a regional strategic plan which, as right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, is in the process of consultation. That plan is reviewed every three years. The Department publishes strategic plans, and these are updated. We wish to put the information that is issued by the boards into a modified format. I am sure that many of the boards will continue to publish annual reports of some sort, but they will not be published in the same detailed and structured way as those of the past. Of course, the Department will continue to want to receive sufficient information from the boards to ensure that departmental strategy can be fulfilled.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West said the boards were not elected, but he will be aware that some of the members of the boards are elected representatives. I hope that the elected representatives will not resign from these boards because they have an important part to play. The presence of those representatives on the boards, and the proposals in the order, will bring the boards into line with practice in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I am conscious of the need to make available as much background information and statistics as possible to the public. However, I am not convinced that the present form of annual reports has been either the most efficient or the most effective way of doing that. I do not believe that the annual reports of the Southern board are the main source of reading for a Saturday night in the bars and clubs in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh—much as I wish that they were.

Mr. Archer: May I offer the Minister a deal? If we may have more debates, at more convenient times, we will dispense with the annual reports.

Mr. Needham: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the power to make such arrangements lies further down the Front Bench. However, I assure him that, in view of my lack of practice, I should be only too happy to have many more debates, with a better attendance, so that there will be some hon. Members present who will actually remember who I am and where I come from.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, together with the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), raised a fundamental question concerning article 17. The key to that article is the risk to public health. The right hon. Member for South Down was absolutely correct to say that, for this purpose, the Department is the equivalent of the Secretary of State. The key point is that the Department is empowered to make regulations under article 18 to detain in, or to remove to hospital, someone who is considered to be a risk to public health because he is suffering from a notifiable or infectious disease.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West discussed the problem of AIDS, but I do not intend to get into an argument about whether AIDS is an infectious disease. I hope that the House accepts the serious nature

of this disease. If, and for the reasons mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, someone with this disease could be a danger to public health, it is necessary for the Department to be able to go before a resident magistrate and ask for an order to be made to detain that person in, or remove him to, hospital.
I cannot give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the details for which he asked concerning the Manchester case. The fundamental question is not whether the regulation should apply to somebody who wants to go home for the weekend or for two or three days. The point is whether he is a risk to public health. If there were not that risk, it is inconceivable that a resident magistrate would say that that person should be detained in hospital over that period. I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that, in those circumstances, the court would show good sense.
The right hon. Member for South Down asked whether there was an appeal to this process. There is no provision for appeal in the Public Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1967. There is the general right of appeal against the decision of a magistrates court under article 143 of the Magistrates Court (Northern Ireland Order) 1981. In contrast, there is a specific right of appeal in Great Britain. I was not aware of that and it must be properly considered. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the nature of these diseases is such—I am thinking particularly of the problems that we face with AIDS—that if someone suffering from one of them refuses to behave responsibly and reasonably and puts public health at risk, the Government and the Department must act in the interests of public health.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am sure that the House is indebted to the hon. Gentleman for the candour with which he has recognised what I think we would all see as a deficiency in the order as it has been presented to us. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that this is yet another illustration of the general proposition that there is no substitute for making law by Bill.

Mr. Needham: We have debated this matter before. The present system of dealing in the House with unamendable legislation affecting Northern Ireland cannot be considered satisfactory. I think that I will stray from the point if I return to a debate in a previous Session in which hon. Members who gave reasons for that system were called to order. But it is fair to the House to state the present position.
The right hon. Member for South Down referred to the acquisition and disposal of land. The Department does not have the power to purchase land beside land which it occupies and which, if purchased, would make the total package much more valuable. The right hon. Gentleman referred to package A and package B. I can understand that a person might want to buy the Department's land—say package B—to put it with package A and then sell it. Surely it cannot be argued—I am sure that the right hon. Member for South Down would not dispute this—that when the Department owns package B and the addition of package A would make the two packages much more valuable, it would not be sensible to give the Department the right to purchase package A, put the two packages on the market and obtain the best value for the public purse.
We advocate article 16 to make a delicate matter simpler and less complicated. I appreciate that the right


hon. Member for South Down is an avid reader of the proceedings of the Committee on the order. In terms of providing a certificate for a fee, it is administratively more sensible to proceed along the lines that we have suggested.
There are several reasons for allowing practitioners who are suspended to maintain their practices. Suspension does not mean that a practitioner is necessarily unfit to control his practice or that he will not return actively to take part in it. Suspension might be due to preliminary hearings concerning professional misconduct, but, if investigations show that there is no case to answer, the practitioner can be reinstated. Clearly, it would be extremely unfair in the meantime if the practice has been allowed to run down.
Suspension might be due to a general practitioner suffering from a mental or physical illness. Normally, a GP who is ill can arrange for his practice to be maintained and return to it after his illness. Sometimes, that may not be possible. He may be involved in a motor accident which leaves him with an impairment from which he eventually recovers and he could be reinstated. In those circumstances, it would be unfair to let the practice suffer.
Will the patients be properly protected under the arrangements? When a member of a practice is suspended, the service to the patients will be provided by properly qualified and registered doctors. In addition, when suspension is because of ill health, the General Medical Council and the General Dental Council have the power to impose further requirements on the practice for the protection of patients.
The proposals will enable the Department to remunerate doctors and dentists who have been suspended on grounds of ill health, but we make no provision for the remuneration of doctors and dentists suspended under the direction of the professional conduct committee, respectively, the General Medical Council and the General Dental Council. If suspension fell under that category, the order would not take effect. The corresponding provisions in Great Britain to articles 7 and 8 are sections 14, 15 and 16 and schedule 6 to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudication Act 1983.
The right hon. Member for South Down asked why it was necessary in article 17 to have new regulatory powers in respect of public health risks from ships and aircraft and asked what had happened. I suspected that he would pick up that point. These matters were not reserved for or transferred to the old Stormont Government, but were covered by section 143(1) to (7) of the Public Health Act 1936, which was United Kingdom legislation. However, they were transferred to Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland Act 1974. Because the regulations for control of certain diseases have continued to be made

under the Public Health Act 1936, the time has come to bring the legislation into line and, if necessary, to alter it to include it in the transferred and reserved matters. That is why this aspect has been dealt with under the order.
I am afraid that I was so busy making notes to keep up with the right hon. Member for South Down that I missed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), except when he said that he felt it was unfortunate that there were no Northern Ireland Members present to join the debate. I agree with him. I shall, of course, study Hansard tomorrow and write in full to my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh referred to common lodging houses. I feel strongly about this matter. I give him an undertaking that there will be rigorous and proper inspection of those houses. I have been concerned about the extent of rigorous and proper inspection of residential homes in Northern Ireland—I am not talking about common lodging houses—and I have asked the Southern board and other boards how they undertake visits to ensure that inspection is carried out properly and satisfactorily. There are now many more such residential homes than in the past. I shall continue to ensure that inspection is carried out properly and satisfactorily. Obviously, that will apply to common lodging houses as well.
I do not believe that article 9, to which the right hon. Member for South Down referred, covers the younger homeless. The right hon. Gentleman put forward the reasons for introducing that article. It does not make boards assist in the provision of respite care, but gives them the opportunity to give assistance to those people who want to go into such care. I hope that the boards can take advantage of that article, for the important reasons put forward by the right hon. Member for South Down.
I hope that, having dealt with these miscellaneous provisions in a miscellaneous way, I have answered most of the points raised by right hon. and hon. Members and that the order will receive the approval of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Health and Personal Social Services and Public Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 5th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

TEACHERS' PAY AND CONDITIONS BILL

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a Second time.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Diego Garcia

Mr. Allen McKay: I beg to ask leave to present a petition. It was received yesterday by me and the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). The petition is signed by 1,400 petitioners from every part of the United Kingdom. It relates to the treatment of the Ilois of Diego Garcia island. They are petitioning because they think that the Government and Parliament have not treated those people correctly. Therefore, they are asking for compensation over and above what has been paid. In addition, they are asking for meetings to take place between the Ilois, the British Government and Mauritius to decide matters such as work, housing and resettlement. The petitioners are very disturbed about the situation in the Indian Ocean.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Temporary Medical and Nursing Care

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. Michael Shersby: My purpose in speaking on the motion for the Adjournment is to draw the Government's attention to a very worrying problem of comparatively recent origin: the heavy cost to health authorities of providing temporary medical and nursing cover in our hospitals. That is resulting in health authorities having to use expensive agency staff to fill the gap caused by a shortage of junior hospital doctors and nursing staff. The problem is a national one. It may be more acute in the North-West Thames and South-West Thames areas but I suspect that it also exists in other parts of the country such as Manchester.
I am greatly concerned about the effect it is having in Hillingdon, in which my constituency is situated. The Hillingdon health authority is currently facing an excess of expenditure of around £350,000 as a result of the extra cost of using agency doctors and nurses. As a result, two wards have had to be closed, one in Hillingdon hospital and another in Mount Vernon hospital situated in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). My hon. Friend would have been present for the debate had it started later, as most of us had expected. I know that his absence from it at this early hour does not suggest a lack of interest. He is greatly concerned about the position in Mount Vernon hospital and so are his constituents in Ruislip-Northwood.
The closures are temporary, but had they not been implemented Hillingdon would have overshot its budget by £500,000 by the end of this year. In Hillingdon's case, an overshoot of £500,000 might have been manageable were it not for the fact that the authority is carrying over a debt of £1 million accumulated over the past two years. That is the result of the transfer of resources away from the Thames regions to other parts of the country under the resource allocation working party procedure adopted by the previous Labour Government when the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was the health Minister. I am glad that, as a result of the many representations made by London Members, a review of the RAWP formula is now in progress. I hope that the review will soon be completed and that as a result less money will be taken away from the Thames regions and proper account will be taken of their requirements.
Transitional problems arising from resource allocation have, I am pleased to note, been recognised by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In his autumn statement he allocated £30 million for easing transitional problems in London. I hope that, when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State replies, she will give me an assurance that some of that £30 million will soon be coming to North-West Thames, Hillingdon health authority in particular.
My duty as the Member for Uxbridge is to leave my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in no doubt about my concern and that of my constituents and the medical staff as to the seriousness of closing down those two wards. That concern has been powerfully reinforced by the chairman of the district medical committee, Dr. Diana Rimmer, whose views I have communicated to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
In a letter that Dr. Rimmer has written to me on this problem, she said:
The results of these closures are all too easy to predict. Within no time, the general surgeons of both hospitals will be treating emergencies only. Little or no 'cold' surgery will be performed—there will be no beds for such patients and waiting lists will escalate. In addition to the implications for the waiting lists, continued closure of these two wards into January and February 1987 will lead to even greater problems. During the January/February period, as you must be aware, the demand on medical beds increases enormously. It is common practice for medical patients to occupy surgical beds at this time. We have no reason to believe that in this respect the situation this winter will differ from previous years.
It can be seen that it is a matter of considerable concern to the district medical committee.
In addition, the chairman of the Hillingdon community health council, Mrs. Shirley Court, has also expressed her concern to me. I ask my hon. Friend to take careful note of the fears that the council expresses. It was for the reasons expressed by the health authority, the district medical committee and the community health council that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood and I had an urgent meeting with the Minister for Health on 6 November. He was most helpful and, as a result of our discussion, it quickly became clear that the National Health Service is facing new problems of national dimensions.
That was well reported in an excellent article by Jill Sherman in The Times on 24 November. She said:
Health authorities are being forced to pay huge sums to private locum agencies providing temporary medical cover as more doctors opt for high private rates. Hospitals are paying up to three times the amount they would pay for doctors under the National Health Service system and the charges are spiralling. One health authority said that agency fees had completely wiped out all the saving it had made through putting other services out to tender.
That illustrates very quickly the national nature of the problem.
In looking at the difficulty of recruiting doctors to provide temporary medical cover there are several factors which immediately come to notice. I am told that more doctors today are going into general practice earlier because the financial rewards are greater. They are doing that because it is more attractive than if they work in a hospital as a senior house officer. Although straight salary comparisons are difficult, my research has shown that, after a few years in general practice, a doctor would have a net income of £25,080, perhaps more. A senior house officer or registrar earns less. The average salary for doctors on the first two points of the registrar scale and the first three points of the senior registrar scale are between £16,206 and £19,484. Therefore, the incentive for working in hospitals is, and always has been, the prospect of ultimately becoming a consultant. Unfortunately, there is a shortage of consultancy posts. That prevents regional health authorities from putting them forward for approval. That is due to the diversion of resources from the south-east and the Thames regions in particular. Because of that, an authority such as mine, Hillingdon, has to spend more than it should on junior hospital doctors. It simply cannot pay more consultants.
The shortage of junior hospital doctors would have been evident much earlier had it not been for the extensive employment of overseas doctors in NHS hospitals. However, since 1 April 1985, the Department of Health

and Social Security has imposed new restrictions on the employment of those doctors who now have to obtain a work permit in order to practise in the United Kingdom.
The result is that the pool of locums has been greatly reduced. Overseas doctors can now come to the United Kingdom only if they are to work in approved training posts. Traditionally, temporary medical cover has been provided by a pool of United Kingdom doctors who are willing to do agency work, but for the past six or seven years Britain has relied increasingly on the pool of overseas doctors to do the job. That, perhaps, has been an unwise practice, particularly as that pool has now dried up.
Therefore, the drift to general practice and the drying up of the overseas doctors pool has created a severe shortage of medical manpower. The shortage is being overcome by using medical agencies, some of which I understand are single doctor agencies, which charge much higher fees than health authorities would normally pay. They also charge a substantial commission, which I am told is of the order of 20 per cent. The fee is as much as 200 per cent. higher than the National Health Service figure in some instances. Let me give a few examples.
Whereas the National Health Service would expect to pay a doctor £332 for one week's work, one of these agencies would charge £612 for the same week's work. At the top of the scale, whereas the National Health Service would normally pay £500 for one week, the agencies are charging £900. One agency I know is offering a junior doctor £500 for one weekend's work. No wonder my local health authority is overspent.
As I said earlier, this is not exclusively a North-West Thames problem. I am told that other health authorities around Manchester and Birmingham have tried to fill the gap in temporary medical cover by recruiting doctors from other countries within the European Community. Apparently, doctors recruited from these countries have only to pass a language test. What we are seeing, in fact, is a violent swing away from service in National Health Service hospitals to general practice. If this trend continues, I am told that there will eventually be a shortage of opportunities to serve in general practice.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend can give me any assurance that those general practitioners who want one will be able to find a job in general practice in, say, three years' time. I ask this question because many people in the National Health Service now feel that what is needed is a properly organised flow of doctors into NHS hospitals and into general practice and an avoidance of these violent swings from one extreme to another. If that is to be achieved, something must be done about the remuneration of doctors in the hospital service.
What, then, is the solution to this complex, multi-factorial problem as it affects doctors? I believe that there are some steps that would go quite a long way towards solving the problem in the short term. First, better planning of how many doctors go into general practice and how many go into NHS hospitals would be an enormous step forward. I shall be interested to know whether my hon. Friend has it in mind to bring forward any proposals to make such organisation possible.
Secondly, I believe that the Government should consider the regulation of medical agency fees to stop them overcharging the National Health Service. Out of the £500 which an agency charges a National Health Service hospital for a weekend's work from a junior doctor, the


agency commission is certainly in the region of £100 or more. What, I ask, is the difference between having a pharmaceutical price regulation scheme to govern the cost of pharmaceutical products supplied to the National Health Service and the regulation of the fees that are charged by agencies to supply doctors to the National Health Service?
A third step that would help would be an improvement in London weighting. At the moment it is far from satisfactory, bearing in mind the very high cost of housing in London and the south-east. Accommodation is a very real problem. I hope, therefore, that the Government will encourage the further sale of surplus land owned by the National Health Service, so that it can invest in better accommodation for staff.
In this respect I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that, once again, Hillingdon is leading the way. Following the sale of land at Harefield hospital, it will be able to provide 12 new units for medical staff, financed entirely from the proceeds of the sale. In short, we need good quality accommodation for medical and nursing staff. This can be provided if a deal is done with the developers when land is sold off. I hope very much that my hon. Friend will press other health authorities to do more in this regard.
Fourth, more flexibility is required to create senior house officer jobs in National Health Service hospitals. This problem was referred in the Department of Health and Social Security publication entitled "Achieving the Balance", to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) paid so much attention when he was Minister for Health.
I turn to the problem of providing temporary nursing cover. The principal problem is the availability of young people to train as student nurses. There is real difficulty in 1986 in attracting sufficient students to enter nursing. The problem of availability is illustrated by the number of 18-year-olds who will be available as potential entrants over the next few years. By 1994, for example, the number will decrease by 25 per cent. This is due to demographic factors—to the drop in the birth rate. Looked at another way, there will be a drop of 25 per cent. by 1994 in the number of students with five O-levels to whom this country will look to provide sufficient students to enter the nursing profession.
Another problem affecting nursing today is that career options have widened considerably over the past 10 years. There is much more competition for the available students from other careers, such as the police force, the teaching profession, industry and commerce, and so on. Undoubtedly, pay is a major problem. Few hon. Members will deny that nursing is not particularly well paid. The figures speak for themselves.
A staff nurse, after training at the age of 21, will receive £7,200 a year. A policeman, or a woman police constable, at the age of 21 will receive £7,752, but a year later, at the age of 22, will receive £9,756, plus London weighting and the London allowance, giving the very substantial figure of £11,700 for a 22-year-old officer.
I am not saying that the police should not be well paid for the difficult and dangerous task that they perform, but I make the point that many nurses also perform difficult and dangerous jobs. Several of them have lost their lives in recent years when dealing with violent patients, and

many of them work in hospitals in inner London areas where safety in the streets is not all that we should like it to be.
If, therefore, we look at the comparisons, a staff nurse of 22 will be receiving £4,500 less than a policewoman of the same age. The improved prospects for teachers' pay and the opportunities available in many other fields make powerful competitors against the nursing profession. In my judgment, the problem is that low pay for nurses has now become part of folklore. I am told that some teachers advise against nursing as a career because of this factor.
As with doctors, accommodation is also a problem. The cost of local housing is a major factor in the North-West Thames region. I am told that the accommodation of learner nurses is subsidised when they are living outside hospital, but that every time they receive a pay rise the subsidy drops. What is needed, then, is an allowance for accommodation that does not vary during the training period.
Another problem that needs to be faced is the condition of residential accommodation, which is often poor and which acts as a disincentive to recruitment. I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that money from land sales is used to upgrade sub-standard accommodation. A major improvement programme is needed for nurses' accommodation. This should be widely publicised. I believe that it would be a major factor in aiding recruitment.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the possibility of encouraging local health authorities to co-operate with building societies and form housing associations to enable nurses to gain entry to the purchase of accommodation through equity sharing schemes. Even if a nurse bought only 25 per cent. of the equity in a flat or maisonette it would help her if she moved to another part of the country. She could sell her share and have a useful nest egg to help in purchasing accommodation elsewhere.
The United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting has developed a new framework known as Project 2000 which involves the introduction of a level of nurse to be called a registered nurse. Such a nurse is likely to be someone with five O-levels or someone who, although not having the necessary O-levels, can pass an entrance test. I wish to pay tribute to the sterling work that enrolled nurses have given to the National Health Service. It is important that the Project 2000 proposals, ambitious though they are, ensure that enrolled nurses have a continuing role to play.
Shortly after I was fortunate enough to be offered this Adjournment debate, I received a letter from a Nurse Dawson from Birmingham. He told me that he was glad that I was raising this subject on the Adjournment. He said in his letter:
Many Enrolled nurses have done S.E.N. training (a) because they do not wish to become involved with management of wards; (b) they want to be seen as a bedside nurse; (c) they do not hold the qualifications to do State registration.
I hope that Project 2000 will do nothing to diminish the recruitment of those excellent bedside nurses on whom so many people depend. I hope that we do not push the academic qualifications too far up the scale and perhaps exclude people from nursing who might otherwise have given the country valuable service.
Another factor which I must mention tonight and which is affecting the supply of nurses dramatically is the


fact that the Australians have run an advertising campaign offering better conditions of work and a new lifestyle which has resulted in 2,000 qualified nurses being attracted away from Britain to work on the other side of the world. That is a very serious matter because all those nurses who have been attracted away from Britain have all been trained at the expense of the British taxpayer.
Information on Australian nurses supplied by the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting gives the number of verifications of qualifications issued in respect of United Kingdom nurses, midwives and health visitors seeking to practise in Australia. It shows that from 1 April 1984 to 31 March 1985, 732 nurses went to Australia. But from 1 April 1985 to 31 March 1986, 2,220 nurses went to Australia. The number of nurses, midwives and health visitors from Australia whose applications for registration in the United Kingdom have been accepted was 782 in 1984–1985, roughly balancing the outflow, but in 1985–86 it was only 624.
A major factor in the increase in emigration has been a positive campaign to recruit nurses to go to Australia, following a decision by most of the Australian states to transfer nurses' education from the hospital sector to the advanced education sector. That has diminished the contribution of nursing students as part of the work force and created a need on the part of the Australian authorities to recruit additional qualified staff.
I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies she will say something about the recruitment of our qualified nurses to Australia. That is having a major impact on the ability to retain the nurses that we so badly need in Hillingdon and in other parts of the North-West Thames region. The London weighting allowance should be increased from £876, which is payable on the outer fringes of London, if only to take account of the high cost of accommodation. After tax, £876 is not much money in November 1986. If that sum was increased, it would do much to help overcome the present shortage.
I emphasise that Hillingdon is 10 per cent. down on qualified staff. That means 200 posts. We are 20 per cent. down overall, including learners. That means 400 posts. That position compares with 8 per cent. under establishment on qualified staff and a full complement of learners only two years ago. The drop in numbers is a recent phenomenon and needs urgent action.
As my hon. Friend the Minister must know, Hillingdon has not sat idly by while that position has developed. It has run an advertising campaign in the press and on local radio. It has produced a video programme for schools and has conducted a vigorous recruitment campaign in the Republic of Ireland. I do not know what the Republic of Ireland will have to say about that and I am rather relieved that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) are now no longer in their places or they might have had something to say about our poaching Irish nurses.
But, despite all those efforts, a third of Hillingdon's budget for nursing staff is now paid out in fees for agency nurses. That amounts to £900,000 a year. If the authority did not have to use agency nurses, that sum would be reduced by about £280,000. That is because learner nurses earning £4,325 to £4,875 a year are having to be replaced by agency staff nurses who are paid £8,121 a year and auxiliary nurses who are paid £5,897 a year. Nursing

agencies, unlike medical agencies, are restricted on the amount they can charge by way of commission or fees to 11 per cent. That is a desirable measure.
At 30 September 1985 in the North-West Thames region there were 1,060 whole-time equivalent hospital nursing and midwifery agency staff employed. That is a substantial figure and further illustrates the cost of the operation.
Today our nurses are no longer drawn from that pool of young women who were previously subsidised by their parents. Today they must often bring up a family. Many of them are female one-parent families. Others are male nurses who must bring up a family on a nurse's income. Only if conditions of pay and accommodation are improved can their service to the community be properly recognised. We need a full-scale review of nursing as a career and we need to market it with much more vigour in future if the problem is not to get worse.
I have one or two ideas which might alleviate the position still further. Firstly, will my hon. Friend the Minister consider lifting the requirement for the payment of superannuation so that it is not paid for the first five years of employment after qualification? That practice is commonly adopted in the private sector. Secondly, will she make residential allowances more generous? Thirdly, will she consider the possibility of introducing free meals for nursing staff in hospitals? These days, many employees enjoy free or subsidised canteen meals, so why should not nurses have something similar?
I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to consider a major new deal for nurses. Cannot we tell nurses, "The NHS will train you. It will offer you a highly worthwhile and properly paid job. Will you in return agree that when you have qualified you will work in an NHS hospital for X number of years? If you do so, you will receive a gratuity, based on the number of years of active service rendered."? Those years need not be consecutive, as we want to attract women back into nursing after they have interrupted their careers to bring up a family.
That suggestion is based on the service cadetship scheme for medical students, and perhaps it could be applied more widely in the NHS. We must do something like that, because the cost of training an enrolled nurse is now £7,700. The three-year training for a registered general nurse, previously a state registered nurse, costs £11,700. The total cost of training all such nurses in England for the financial year 1985–86 was £449 million. If those very substantial sums are not going to be allowed to run down the plughole to Australia, we must provide some additional incentives for our nurses to remain and help here in Britain.
I repeat that I have raised these matters at greater length than would have been possible in other circumstances because of my grave concern at the possibility that ward closures at Hillingdon hospital and Mount Vernon hospital could become prolonged. That could result in increased waiting lists, which would be quite contrary to everything that my hon. Friend the Minister stands for, as well as to the Government's policy of cutting waiting lists. I have raised this matter at such length only because the need is urgent. I very much hope that my hon. Friend will be able to respond to some of the solutions that I have suggested tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) on raising this most important subject. I agree that it has proved valuable to have had a little more time than might otherwise have been the case, although some right hon. and hon. Friends who may have wanted to attend could not do so, as the debate began earlier than had been expected.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend on the considerable detail that he gave in presenting his several cases. I did not manage to catch everything that he said, and if I do not answer all his points I hope that he will allow me to write to him. I know that he had a recent meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister for Health and with my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and that he then aired some of the issues which he has raised tonight. He has thus shown the excellent, determined and assiduous way in which he represents his constituents by putting their interests to Ministers. I hope that they have taken note of that and will accord him due credit.
I shall deal first with the national question of agencies and look at some of the background, rules, costs and numbers involved, the reasons for the problems and whether they are exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge has suggested. I shall also mention some of the suggestions that we have received. I shall then deal with Hillingdon, although I shall mention it in passing before then.
The first question is: why do we employ agency nurses and locum doctors at all? We feel that nursing posts should ideally be filled by directly employed staff, as that will ensure the maximum continuity of patient care, a reduction—we hope—in the number of management and supervision problems, the provision of clinical training and the promotion of team work. Much the same considerations apply to doctors or, indeed, to many of the other staff who work in the Health Service.
The relevant circular HC(83)2 points out that, on the other hand, there are times when agencies provide staff that we need. The first paragraph states:
Whilst it is recognised that nursing posts in the NHS should ideally be filled with directly employed full or part-time staff…there will inevitably be circumstances where urgent short-term needs arise. In these circumstances qualified staff from nurses agencies can prove valuable provided they are used as part of a planned management of resources. Authorities are reminded that they should take account of their likely need for agency nurses in drawing up their budgets.
The need for cover for doctors is generally greater than it is or should be for nurses, because of study leave and gaps that arise as juniors move through a series of short-term training posts. Doctors are expected to cover colleagues' absences where practicable. Where they are unable to do so, the long-standing practice is to engage locums. Agencies are used for urgent needs, or where a locum is unavailable. Therefore, the situation for doctors and nurses is slightly different.
We estimate the total cost of employing an agency nurse is little different from that for the directly employed nurse with similar qualifications. Directly employed nursing staff are entitled to annual and sick leave, while payments to agency staff are limited to the mid-point of

the NHS pay scale and they attract on top of that only the agency fee plus VAT. Those rules are strictly set out in paragraph 9 of the circular.
On that basis, therefore, costs should not be a primary consideration in relation to nurses. Locum doctors are paid on the same basis as regular staff—again on the mid-point of the NHS pay scale. In agreeing terms with agencies, authorities are again required to have regard to NHS locum rates. As a result, in the period between 1979–80 and 1985–86, spending on locums as a proportion of the hospital and community health services medical and dental bill has remained constant at about 3·4 per cent., or approximately £38 million in current terms. But estimated expenditure on medical and dental agency staff is now about £17·5 million, which is approximately 1·55 per cent. of the pay bill compared with about 0·8 per cent. in 1979–80. Thus, we have seen a steady growth in the percentage of the pay bill going on agency medical and dental staff, although it still remains a very small percentage of the overall bill.
How many staff are we talking about? The number of agency nurses fluctuates over the years and, indeed, between the seasons. We are able to take figures only on a quarterly basis, which is not quite as tight as we might like, but those figures at least show that the fluctuation is what would be expected if the agency nurses are being used properly to satisfy urgent needs. About 87 per cent. of agency nurses are employed in four Thames regional health authorities and the postgraduate special health authorities where the authorities share recruitment difficulties for nursing with many employers outside the NHS in a wide range of trades. At September 1985, the number of agency nurses employed in England was 4,120, which is about 1 per cent. of nursing and midwifery staff. Again, the percentage is quite tiny.
It is worth noting that several regions—the Trent region, the Northern region and the North-Western region—do not use agency nursing or midwifery staff at all, and the majority use only a very small number. It is really only the North-West Thames authority that uses agency nurses to any substantial extent.
The proportion of doctors and dentists wholly employed as locums in England, at 3·9 per cent., has remained essentially unchanged for the past five years. The number of doctors and dentists employed as locums in England at September 1985, at 1,802, is not split up in the way that I would like, and I do not have any information on the number of agency staff employed. It may be that until very recently it was not a problem, so the figures were not identified separately.
Is the use of agency staff a problem? To some extent, I take issue with my hon. Friend on this score. Nurses should not present a problem of expense because the cost should be the same. I heard what my hon. Friend said about the difficulties in Hillingdon, but it appears that in Hillingdon qualified nurses employed by the agency are replacing learners employed by the authority. That is not comparing like with like. If we compare qualified nurses employed by the agencies with those employed by the authorities, the cost should be much the same. If through deliberately using agency nurses, or through some weakness or decision of management to do things slightly differently, the nursing mix changes, we shall find, as my hon. Friend has said, that the use of agency nurses will push up the bill. The health authority will be getting


qualified nurses instead of learners—not like for like. There may be a number of reasons why that is or is not appropriate.

Mr. Shersby: I agree with my hon. Friend, but one of the reasons is the shortage of learner nurses.

Mrs. Currie: I shall turn to that issue at a later stage. I am glad that my hon. Friend accepts that if we compare like with like there should not be a problem of excess expenditure.
It must be accepted that most agency staff who work as nurses also work somewhere else. That means that they may become tired or careless when working as agency staff for the National Health Service. That can be the position whether they are working for the Health Service during the day or for another organisation. I have checked, and there is no firm evidence from the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, which is the disciplinary body, that there are difficulties and that tiredness is influencing nursing standards. However, it is something that we shall watch with great care. It would be foolish to take a dim view of agency staff who work for somebody else for part of the time without firm evidence to support that view. If account is taken of patterns of unemployment throughout the country, we may prefer to see two people rather than one person doing two jobs, especially in some parts of the country where there is a problem.
We can learn from the nursing agencies and our use of them that staff often want flexibility, and that is what the agencies are able to offer. There is a problem of continuity, especially if agency staff are being used, where perhaps the management of nursing resources might be slightly better organised. In other words, management has an important input into patterns of employment. It is essential that an agency is not telephoned to fill a gap that management should have directed some attention and thought to filling permanently.
My hon. Friend has accurately identified some of the problems of cost with agency doctors. Doctor agencies are not controlled in the same way as nurse agencies and the rules about the level of fees are not anywhere near as tight as those which apply to nurses. One of the things that worries us is that if medical staff in any numbers start to choose the agency form of employment, they may help to create the gaps that the agencies fill. We would be concerned if there were any evidence that that was happening to any degree. In the absence of the detailed figures that I had hoped to offer my hon. Friend, it is difficult to comment further about that. It is obviously a matter that we shall take carefully into account. I think that my hon. Friend has done a service by raising the question in this form this evening.
It is essential that the patient should not suffer. I would prefer to know that whenever we spend money the patient will benefit. It would be worrying if any health authority were to spend more money, only to offer a weaker service as a result.
It is worth saying that the fundamental cause of the shortage of junior locums and medical staff generally is that demand from the health authorities has outstripped available supply. The supply of medical staff is still increasing slowly, but much of the growth in the Health Service recently has drawn on increasing numbers of doctors. Shortages are occurring in posts that are seen as offering poor career prospects. Unfortunately, some of the

explanations that are commonly advanced, such as one or two that my hon. Friend touched upon, seem so far not to fit the facts. For example, the total number of senior house officers—SHOs—in post has been growing. The total increased by 165 between 1983 and 1985, despite widespread reports of recruitment difficulties. The increase in the number of United Kingdom-born doctors has more than offset the reduction in overseas doctors. Immigration controls in April 1985 appear to have had no detectable impact on the previous trends in the inflow and stock of overseas doctors.
Whatever we may feel about the conflict between the role and attraction of the general practitioner compared with the hospital doctor, the GP option is an increasingly popular first choice of career. There are, however, still more than enough doctors for hospital career positions.
One of the possibilities is that a reduction in junior hospital doctors' hours may boost the demand for locums, and that is a factor that we have considered. My hon. Friend will know that the Government have taken positive steps to encourage the reduction in junior doctors' hours. Contracted hours were 91·6 a week in 1976 and they are now down to 86·5, of which 57 are spent working while the rest are on call. I take the view that these hours are still far too high and that more effort must be made to reduce them. Some staff are still extremely hard-pressed, and we expect authorities to keep the need for the most onerous duty rosters under constant review. We need to know why anyone should be working one in two or even anything more onerous than one in three.
It has been suggested that our initiative has boosted locum demand, but that is not borne out by the reports that have been produced by health authorities. For the rotas more onerous than one in three where reductions have been sought, locums were already routinely provided for planned absences in all but a few instances. The gap may have been only about 200 posts, and certainly nothing like the gap filled by locum and perhaps agency doctors. That does not seem to have been a major source of worry. If we are successful in reducing substantially junior hospital doctors' hours, it may be that the gap will widen.
What about shortages of staff? Should we not employ more doctors overall? We are employing more doctors. Under this Government, medical and dental manpower in the hospital and community health services, let alone GP manpower, has grown by about 6,000 full-time equivalents, which is about 13 per cent. I suspect that this is one reason why the gap has begun to open recently in the way that it has.
In Hillingdon, there are supra district and regional specialties, such as plastic surgery, radiotherapy and cardiothoracic surgery, which may mean that slightly greater recruitment difficulties are experienced in Hillingdon than elsewhere in the region. I know that the health authority submitted a request in its short-term programme for additional SHO positions. It has not managed to persuade or convince the management of the necessity for these positions, and it may be that further discussion is required.
Is an increase in doctors' pay necessary? That is a matter for the independent review body, which keeps the relative rewards of hospital doctors and general practitioners under close scrutiny. During the Government's period of office, the pay of doctors and dentists has increased by over 28 per cent. in real terms, and consultants are marginally ahead of GPs.

Mr. Shersby: I am interested in the information that my hon. Friend is giving me, but is she aware of the number of health authorities experiencing difficulty in recruiting senior health officers in each specialty? Of 88 districts which replied to a recent survey undertaken by the National Association of Health Authorities, it seems that 70 per cent. were experiencing difficulty in recruiting orthopaedic specialists; over 40 per cent. were experiencing difficulties in recruiting anaesthetists; and just under 40 per cent. were experiencing the same difficulty in recruiting those who specialise in accident emergencies. I am sure that the figures on a national scale are quite different. I ask my hon. Friend to direct her attention towards some of the problems that occur in the Thames region, where I suspect that we may have the sort of south-east problems that affect many other walks of life.

Mrs. Currie: The pressures on areas of work, such as orthopaedics, are not just pressures or demands for doctors; they are pressures and demands for theatre time and for the full range of services required, mainly because orthopaedics and other areas of work that my hon. Friend mentioned are major success stories of the Health Service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in a recent speech, said that we expect the number of hip operation patients to rise from about 28,000, as they were in 1979, to around 50,000. Therefore, resources will be found to ensure that that can be done. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with me that, as we talk about inputs, one of the things to which we pay attention is output. The problem he identified and the report he mentioned is on my desk for consideration.
It is worth reminding some of those who are considering in which part of the NHS they should make their medical career that a new entrant to hospital services now averages £12,160, and a top consultant can get £57,640, including the maximum distinction award, which is probably more than anybody in the Government gets. In that sense, it is still a well-paid profession, and quite rightly, too, as they are the leaders of the National Health Service.
Possible short-term solutions include using GPs in hospitals on a sessional basis. They enjoy doing it and make a valuable contribution. The possible short-term solutions also include improving the training quality of hard-to-fill posts.

Mr. Shersby: I am fascinated by the comment that general practitioners welcome the opportunity to work in hospitals. Does the Minister say that general practitioners in my constituency will welcome the opportunity to respond to a call to work in Hillingdon hospital after a busy day in general practice? As a Member of Parliament, if, at the end of a busy working week, after my constituency surgery, I asked to put in yet another stint, I should not feel very happy about it. General practitioners are not at all happy about this wonderful opportunity that is being offered to them. I ask the Minister to re-examine the brief that she has been given on that topic. I shall be fascinated to know in how many areas local GPs throw up their hands with joy at the opportunity of being able to work in hospitals.

Mrs. Currie: Knowing my hon. Friend as I do, if he were asked to do an extra stint after he had done his constituency surgery, I am sure that, on behalf of his constituency, he would do just that. The incidence of GPs

doing clinical assistant sessions around the country is quite common. On one occasion recently I received a delegation from a group of people in another part of the country who were concerned about a reduction of service in one of their local hospitals. One of the reasons they were concerned was that GPs would lose their opportunity to do clinical assistant sessions. It is important that, where it is done, it is seen as part of a GP's career, an additional interest and use of his or her expertise, and not simply as a way of filling gaps. This system is widely carried out. I understand that GPs thoroughly enjoy doing it and like having the opportunity so to do.
Two other possibilities are including posts in rotation to offer an attractive package of general professional training—as my right hon. Friend correctly said, the main difficulties come up in certain specific areas of work—and, perhaps, increasing the use of cross cover between specialties and firms. I was impressed by an orthopaedic unit in my constituency, because the people in that unit told me with some pride that they never cancel an operation. When I asked them how they managed to do that, they simply said, "If one of us cannot do it, the others will." In other words, if someone is booked in for surgery and perhaps has been waiting a long time, the team operates strictly as a team and someone will ensure that my constituent has her operation on time, as expected. She will never know about it, but I am aware of the amount of management co-operation and mutual trust that goes into ensuring that someone will look after that patient and do a good job for her. It is possible that more co-operation of that kind could enable us to improve the training and the kind of work that doctors are able to do and ensure that some waiting lists are reduced.
We have been asked why we do not set up NHS locum agencies for doctors. Some authorities are doing just that, including North-West Thames region, which covers my hon. Friend's constituency. A medical bureau called Thames Health Personnel was set up in April 1986. It is based in South-West Hertfordshire district. The aim of that bureau is to place all requests for medical locums with one agency to provide a cost-effective and efficient service. There are six user districts of this service, all in North-West Thames, including Hillingdon. It is too early to assess the impact of this initiative on recruitment in the user districts, but we are following this problem with some interest.
In Wales, Locum Bank Wales is attempting to match available doctors on temporary work with vacancies occurring throughout the Principality. Trent regional health authority recently announced a computerised regional locum bank. I understand that Mersey regional health authority has plans for a clearing house for SHO posts. We do not rule out a national data base. So far, there has been no strong demand from the NHS management for such a data base. It may be that regional or inter-regional developments are the right scale for this sort of operation.
We watch all these developments with considerable interest. They increase the freedom of choice of doctors, make use of spare doctor manpower that may not be available on a full-time basis or may be available only on a temporary basis, and enable us to fill gaps in the Health Service as they occur.
It has been suggested that we might ban the use of medical agencies or impose maximum charges. The authorities must manage the local services. Some find that they can dispense with agencies; others do not. If we were


to ban the use of agencies, it would reduce flexibility and the ability of authorities to respond to short-term staffing crises.
Partly as result of this debate, we have asked the health authorities how they would react to fee ceilings. There has been no strong demand for them from NHS management. If we receive evidence of a worsening problem, we shall ask them again, but it would be wrong for us to impose a change if the NHS management system, which we so laboriously set up, does not consider that there is a need. We issued guidance to health authorities on their role in the use of nurse agencies in 1983, and in 1980 we agreed to a code of practice with representatives of medical agencies. If necessary, we will revise it, but at the moment there seems no great pressure on us to do so.
My hon. Friend mentioned some long-term solutions and correctly identified "Hospital Medical Staffing—Achieving a Balance." At the moment, we are consulting on this matter. The consultative document sets out the proposals. The Government are vigorously pursuing these proposals, and we shall take account of responses to the consultation. The ideas are worth considering carefully.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, I was a member of the Social Services Committee at the time it produced its 1984 report on hospital medical staffing. I was signatory to that report. Again, some of the solutions that were proposed are long-term. The Committee's main point was that Ministers should devise an operational plan to bring about agreed changes in hospital staffing structure that would pick up some of the problems that my hon. Friend identified. Following discussions with the health authorities and with the professions, we have published proposals for such a plan. We are consulting and we shall develop a detailed plan for implementation in the light of the response.
The employment prospects for nurses vary region by region. Some authorities still have difficulty in recruiting sufficiently qualified staff in some locations and specialties, particularly mental illness and mental handicap. It is perhaps a matter of sadness that those shortages do not show up so much as the shortages in acute services which may not be nearly as difficult. But shortages also affect acute services, such as operating theatres and intensive and renal care.
At present I have on my desk several proposals from health authorities obliged to reduce the number of beds in hospital wards to release enough nurses to man the intensive therapy units, not because of financial cuts, but because they simply cannot lay hands on the highly skilled and highly qualified people who can do that type of stressful work. Therefore, they feel there is no point in having lots of patients in beds if they cannot provide intensive care. That is an agonising decision for a health authority to take, but sometimes it appears to be necessary.
About 80 per cent. of our national recruitment publicity is directed towards mental illness and mental handicap. It is as much to try to change the image of that type of work and to attract people into this important area as anything else. Authorities have been asked to consider a wide range of possibilities, and, indeed, my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to our worries about the future.
At present we draw the overwhelming bulk of our nurses from young school leavers—18-year-old girls with O-levels and usually with A-levels, although only O-levels will be the required qualification from 1986

onwards. In 1981, there were 480,000 18-year-old girls. By 1994 there will be only 300,000. That drop gives an idea of the rapid shrinkage of that pool from which nursing and, indeed, the other health care professions, such as physiotherapy, draw their recruits.
I was present today at the launch of the central clearing house for nurse training, which will be a big help in ensuring that we know how many people are applying for nurse training, what their level of qualifications may be, and that they go to nurse training places, so that we do not have too many applications in one place and vacancies in another. But among the other things that we are looking at seriously is an alternative to the traditional recruitment markets—men and mature entrants—and possibly to the qualifications for entrance to see whether they have become a barrier rather than a door, making sure that we do not exclude people who have all the right talents and abilities who are perhaps deterred, as my hon. Friend rightly said in the case of the nurse who had written to him, by the way in which some of the most senior nursing training is presented.
We are most concerned to reduce the wastage of learners and qualified staff. We cannot afford to lose nurses as we have been doing. That means finding out why people leave and whether there is some way in which we can encourage people to stay. That means, instead of insisting on established and traditional ways of working within a hospital, asking whether the qualified personnel, to whom we have access, might want to work in a slightly different way. That means encouraging qualified staff to come back to nursing, looking at what they want and how they would like to work.
It is curious that there are no recruitment difficulties in certain areas, such as in recruiting practice nurses to work in a GP's surgery. That seems to be the kind of work that these good people want to have, in which case it is not for us to say that they are wrong, but to find out what would suit them and encourage them to come back into nursing in one way or another.
We need to examine the skill mix and deployment of qualified and less qualified staff and to establish the right skill mixes where they are most needed. There is a difference between an intensive therapy ward and a ward which is looking after people recovering from minor surgery. It is important to get that mix right and to ensure that we use our expensive and increasingly scarce personnel in the right way.
It is important that we should reduce levels of absence that can be avoided. Obviously, there are absences that cannot be avoided, such as when nurses are training. We should consider sickness and the extent to which nurses find aspects of the stress of the job difficult to take. It may be that by looking after our staff just a little bit better—or even a darn sight better—we may encourage them to stay and have a rather higher percentage of them available to us and to our patients than we have at present.
My hon. Friend mentioned Project 2000. He knows that it will not be published until January, and he will understand, therefore, if I do not comment further on it. But his remarks about SENs, which will be welcome to them, have been carefully noted.
What are we going to do about all this? My hon. Friend mentioned the more experienced nurses and the importance of paying them properly. That, as we know, is being looked at now. The management and staff sides of the nurses and midwives staff negotiating council have


begun a review of the clinical grading structure. The review will examine the duties and responsibilities of nurses over the range of jobs, including specialised areas. We hope that once a new grading structure is agreed it will be possible for the review body to recommend appropriate pay levels. The council aims to complete its work in time for the 1988 pay review. It will be some time before we see the benefit of that, but its proposals may be far reaching and will, I hope, take up some of the problems raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge.
My hon. Friend also asked about Australia. I do not need to quote the figures again, as I provided them in a written answer. My hon. Friend is quite correct. This year we have lost almost 2,000 girls and gained about 600. It is probably worth remembering that the campaign in Australia has been the result of serious shortages of nurses. That was caused by a switch to using academic students instead of trainee nurses on the wards. That caused a loss of service commitment. We must be aware of the possible dangers of that and also of the possible attractions. I shall make no further comments on that.
The recent experience is not entirely unhappy. Recent experience in recruiting, training and keeping nurses has been worthy of note. For example, the numbers discontinuing nurse training have dropped. There has been a reduction in the number of nurse learners discontinuing training as a proportion of the average number in nurse training. It was nearly 9 per cent. in the year ending 31 March 1980. It was about 5·6 per cent. in the year ended 31 March 1986. That figure should be reduced further if possible, and any reform of nurse education should have that as an objective.
We have also been able to recruit increasing numbers of nurses despite the comments that have been made. The total number of nursing and midwifery staff, including learners, unqualified and agency staff—bearing in mind that agency staff are only 2 per cent. of the total—by 30 September 1985 was 401,200 in whole-time equivalent terms. In other words, there were even more bodies than that. That was an increase of 42,700 over the figure in September 1979.
An estimated 24,000 of that increase was accounted for by additional staff necessary to maintain the level of service as a result of a reduction in working hours from 40 to 37·5. That still leaves an increase of almost 19,000 for service expansion. At the same time, the proportion of qualified nursing midwifery staff increased from about 54 per cent. in 1979 to 59 per cent. in 1985. I would hazard a guess that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge asked his local district health authority to calculate the proportion of qualified staff that it now employs, he would discover that some of the increase in spending on the nursing budget is accounted for by whether they are employed by the agency or the Health Service direct. That trend has been followed throughout the country. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that that is a welcome trend. We want qualified staff on the wards; that is what we pay and train them for.
The number of nurse learners entering training has also been very satisfactory. From information supplied by the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, I can tell my hon. Friend that 23,705 entered training in England in the year ended 31 March 1986. Most of the change in recent years has been the result

of the drop of 19·2 per cent. in enrolled nurse training, perhaps for the reasons mentioned by my hon. Friend. The numbers entering registered nurse training decreased by only 3·2 per cent. over that period.
Dr. Bendall, the director of the English national board, may allow me to quote her again. When we were discussing this matter at lunchtime at a press conference, she said that she felt that some of the drop in SEN enrolments was the result of comments made in some of the discussion about Project 2000. She said:
I think that we have shot ourselves in the foot on that.
That is the view of a most distinguished servant of the nursing profession. It is obvious that sometimes lessons are learned in difficult circumstances.
Should we improve pay for nurses? We are doing just that. Since 1984, nurses' pay has increased by more than 11 per cent. in real terms. That is a significant total increase that many other staff groups would welcome, as would others in the private sector. The scale maxima for sisters and staff nurses have risen since 1984 from £8,103 and £6,094 to £10,800 and £7,750 respectively. In addition, there are premium payments for nights, weekends, overtime, certain specialties and London working. As a Trent Member, I should point out that the pay levels are better than women in some parts of the country could expect for other types of work, so some of the difficulties correctly identified today are problems of London.
Should there be a contractual obligation on nurses to continue in NHS employment for two years or some other period?

Mr. Shersby: In talking about a contractual obligation, I had in mind the provision of an incentive linked with an understanding or an agreement.

Mrs. Currie: I take that point. In fact, I have tried it in another incarnation. When I was chairman of the Birmingham social services committee I was keen to increase the proportion of trained staff substantially. At one stage, in the mid-1970s, only about 30 per cent. of our social workers were trained and qualified. We therefore entered into a commitment with staff who undertook training for the certificate of qualification in social work whereby they were to work for us for two years after their training. It worked a treat, but after the two years they left so one was merely postponing the time at which staff might go if they had strong reasons for doing so. I believe, therefore, that we need to identify why people leave, widen the pool from which we recruit them and make it possible for them to stay. Some of the incentives mentioned by my hon. Friend would then be marginal rather than central to the argument.
It is also worth pointing out that as nurse training is the major training for the caring professions one would expect to train a large number of people who then go on to other things. Many go into other caring professions, such as social service departments, which do not train nurses. They also go to work in the private sector which, with one or two exceptions, does not train nurses. I believe that for some time to come we must regard ourselves as the major training engine generating a supply of qualified caring staff for the most important of professions. In other words, we should not expect them all to be working in the Health Service. It is important to bear in mind the wider input that the training expenditure helps to provide.
My hon. Friend mentioned accommodation and asked whether health authorities were encouraged to sell off land


and property to provide better facilities. They are indeed encouraged to do that, and also to improve property needed for residential accommodation. There are two circulars outstanding—HC(85)19 and HC(86)8—both of which stress that the improvement of residential accommodation should be the first charge on proceeds of sale, exactly as my hon. Friend has suggested.
In fact, Hillingdon is relatively well provided with staff accommodation. According to action plans submitted last year, the district has 1,070 units, of which only 840 were occupied. Half the occupation was by professional trainees and half by other staff. Proposals were made to reduce holdings for other staff by 200, leaving trainee accommodation untouched, which would result in a holding of about 645 units. Health authorities are not now required to implement those proposals if they judge it necessary to do otherwise so as to attract staff. The NHS management board has been looking urgently at the problems of recruitment in London, taking into account a wide range of issues, of which accommodation is one.
I did not manage to catch all the suggestions that my hon. Friend made, but I shall read the Official Report with great care. I think it highly unlikely that we shall start giving free meals to nurses, as he suggests. Indeed, the pressure is on us—rightly, in my view—to reduce the subsidy on staff food rather than to increase it. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that we wish to pay our staff in cash and not in kind. That principle runs through the social security reform and we have removed from large numbers of people the right to free school meals and have given them cash instead so that they benefit not just when the children are at school and eating school meals but for the whole year. Similarly, I would prefer nurses to have cash and not simply a benefit on the occasions when they choose to eat in the staff dining room, whether or not there is a healthy eating policy there.

Mr. Shersby: I agree with my hon. Friend. The major review that is now in the pipeline should certainly help to solve that problem.

Mrs. Currie: I take note of that.
I should now like to turn to Hillingdon. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge might like to stay for the Adjournment debate that follows this one because my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and I serve this nation in a part of Britain which was a major beneficiary from RAWP. I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough has to say.
The Government are committed to RAWP. We are reviewing it and looking hard at some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge. He is right when he says that an extra £30 million has been set aside for the RAWP bridging fund, and we are waiting to see what the health authorities propose to do with that money. I cannot give my hon. Friend the commitment that he seeks, but I have no doubt that his health authority has taken note and will make an appropriate bid.
In Hillingdon, as in every other health authority area, the amount of revenue that has gone in has increased. In 1982–83, the amount was £46 million and it went up to £54 million this year. There has been a hike of £3·5 million to

Hillingdon in the last 12 months. That is a substantial increase and, on top of that, £6·8 million has gone in in capital spending in the last four years. I am sure that that will be of considerable benefit to local people.
We have been talking about input, but the output is patients. I note with interest that the number of in-patients treated in Hillingdon, despite that extra money, has remained virtually static, at 40,000 a year. The number of day cases treated has also remained static, at about 3,000 a year, which is a tiny percentage of the overall level of work. It is less than 10 per cent. and many local authorities are treating 20 or 25 per cent. day cases; in some ways that may be a much cheaper method of looking after patients and increasing throughput.
The number of out-patient attendances has risen from 224,000 to 231,000 in the last four years. That increase is welcome and it is important to put it on record. My hon. Friend is quite right when he says that the Hillingdon health authority has overspent. At the end of September it was overspent by about £800,000 and its projected year end overspend is approximately £1·6 million—if it carries on as it has been doing until September. However, the district has given the region a guarantee that it will not be overspent in broad terms by the end of the financial year.
I am informed that Hillingdon health authority is doing something quite wise. It is holding a reserve in excess of £1 million to offset any unforeseen expenditure over the winter months and to meet any capital expenditure that the health authority may wish to undertake. It may well be that, with careful management of its resources, it can keep the promise made to the region without damaging patient services too much. I am sure that the authority will be grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter in this debate.
We all recognise that Hillingdon has serious problems about waiting lists. The waiting list for general surgery, trauma and orthopaedics and urology went up between March 1985 and March 1986. The worst waiting list is for plastic surgery, where over 2,700 people are waiting. That list has been coming down, but by a long way it is still the worst one of the authority's waiting lists. My hon. Friend will know that a waiting list fund has been set up for the two years from April which will allocate £50 million nationally to accommodate problems like that. We are expecting bids from the regional health authorities for this money and I understand that the North-West Thames regional health authority will give Hillingdon priority management attention. That is the order of the day. If that is not a hint, I do not know what is. At the very least, we expect to see some bids coming in, and after that it is a question of how much money is available for the national bids.
I hope that I have dealt with at least some of the problems identified by my hon. Friend. I shall write to him about those that I have missed. The locums and the agencies literally help to fill a gap. They generally do a good job and I wish them to know that we value the work that they do. On that basis, I am glad to respond to my hon. Friend.

Orders of the Day — Trent Regional Health Authority

Sir John Farr: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on the stamina that she is showing tonight. She gave a concise and telling reply to the earlier debate, and we are grateful for the fact that she has undertaken at this hour to discuss our special problems in the east midlands, of which she has had adequate notice.
I want to raise with my hon. Friend the application of RAWP in the east midlands to the Trent regional and Leicestershire health authorities. I have addressed a succession of Ministers on this subject over a number of years and, whether Labour or Conservative, their replies have always been kind, conciliatory, well-intentioned and encouraging. However, I cannot think of a single Minister who has had the practical experience of my hon. Friend and I know that she will probably appreciate better than some of her predecessors the telling importance of my remarks.
In the Trent regional and Leicestershire health authorities, RAWP is 96 per cent. of national average. In fact, Trent region is 96 per cent. of national average and, within Trent region, the Leicestershire health authority has 96 per cent. of the allotment for Trent. My colleagues in the House and elsewhere in the constituency say that that is good because when I first raised the matter, well over 20 years ago, the Leicestershire health authority was languishing at the bottom of the heap with only 73 per cent. of RAWP. I am not encouraged, because, although we are 96 per cent. of RAWP today, that is 96 per cent. of a figure which has massively increased over the past 20 or 25 years. It is not all that much different from 73 per cent. of a much more modest sum in the 1960s when other Members of Parliament and I repeatedly tried to raise the matter.
The fact remains that 25 years ago the Leicestershire health authority, with 73 per cent. of the national average, was bottom of the league. Even though today it sounds much better to say 96 per cent., it is still bottom of the league. There has been consistent underfunding.
At a meeting in the House of Commons which was attended by a number of my colleagues in the House, the Leicestershire health authority, its chairman and senior officials, a fortnight ago—I am glad to see my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) here—keen representations were made about what is regarded as a unique tragedy for the Leicestershire health authority—the continuing and consistent underfunding.
As I told the Minister only last week, unless RAWP is improved for the current financial year, before March 1987 there will have to be cuts. Spending within the Trent and Leicestershire health authorities is running about 5 per cent. above their allocations, despite stringent economies and the best use of centrally made provisions.
During the past week I was lucky enough to visit Leicester general hospital and I was kindly received by Mr. Inman, who is the general manager. I am sure the Minister will confirm that that hospital is almost like a town. The general manager is responsible for a wages bill of over £20 million per annum.
Leicester general hospital has certain specialties, including its renal and bone transplant units, and it is one

of the leading hospitals for hip transplant operations. Apart from having a close look at Leicester general—I was not able to see it all in the time allotted and I hope to go back for a much longer visit shortly—I went along because of complaints that I had received.
One such complaint concerned one of my constituents who was admitted to Leicester general hospital. It does not have an accident or casualty reception, but it does have important and busy operating theatres. There are constant arranged admissions but certain emergency cases are admitted if a patient requires immediate attention. In this case the patient was wheeled out of the ambulance and on to a stretcher. Unfortunately, he was left for up to 10 minutes before somebody could be called to move him to the theatre, where he needed the urgent attention of the doctor. As a result of this wait, despite the presence of relatives and friends, the man caught a chill and as a result died.
This problem could be eradicated if the entrance hall at Leicester general were cleared and an annex built where patients could be placed on a stretcher while they waited for a porter to transport them. There is over half a mile of corridors on the ground floor alone. Such an annex would enable a patient to be kept warm at modest expense. It is that sort of improvement to the existing facilties at Leicester general that is necessary to preserve the lives of constituents.
What impresses me most—notwithstanding the fact that there are not so many now—are the regular complaints that I receive at my surgery and from constituents' letters about the long waiting time for admission. I was interested to hear the reply that my hon. Friend the Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). It is important that we, as a Government, are determined to try to eradicate the waiting times wherever possible. Of course, a reasonable amount of time must elapse so that patients get the most efficient treatment available. It is not right, however, that there should be delays of perhaps three or four months before there is a consultation, followed by a further wait of several months for some specialty treatment. I welcome the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the other day about the Government's effort to make a big drive in the immediate future to reduce the waiting lists at NHS hospitals.
In raising the matter of the application of RAWP to the Trent regional and Leicestershire health authorities, I should like to touch on a matter in which I know my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be interested. Does she share the view, which has been expressed by some regional health authorities, that bigger is best? The idea is that there will be the massive general hospital in Leicester or Nottingham with the latest machines and highly skilled professional staff. To many people it is common sense to centralise all local medical services. The temptation seems to be to centralise all the specialised medical services in Leicester. I am not sure that that is a good inclination for health authorities to follow.
Often, in country towns, long-established cottage hospitals which are much smaller than the great city professional institutions have for generations been playing a vital and proud role in the fabric of the National Health Service. I think that they can feel sure that they will have an equally important role to play in the future. These smaller hospitals, which are outside the big city centres, specialise in, for example, maternity services.
In Market Harborough, in my constituency, there is a cottage hospital with an excellent maternity service. It has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the country—indeed, much better than the national average. It is a centre of excellence. I find it difficult to appreciate that the current Leicestershire health authority's long-term plan will not involve the expansion of that centre of excellence for which one would hope. The plan does not even imagine the continuance in the next 10 or 15 years of the same level of maternity services. The hospital is due for a substantial downgrading and a big percentage cut in assistance. It is difficult to understand that policy, which applies not only to Market Harborough but to many small country towns, such as Melton Mowbray and Loughborough, where for generations there have been excellently run hospitals with a small but adequate number of beds. They have been held in high regard by local townsfolk.
Of course, we need the big centres in the cities for complex cases. They should always exist, and I hope that they will always continue to be funded adequately, but many mothers and would-be mothers to whom I have talked feel that they should not have to undertake a journey of 20 or 25 miles from the town in which they live to Leicester or Nottingham, unless there is a severe complication. In Market Harborough, in particular—I shall not mention the names of the thousands of people who have signed a petition to this effect—there is a tremendous attachment to the local little cottage hospital. The people are proud of their hospital. It is spotless and the staff are very professional. I hope that the Conservative party and, through it, the Government will continue to encourage these little centres of excellence all over the country. The Conservative party must seek to preserve and enhance treasures such as the cottage hospital in Market Harborough, rather than see their role eroded.
We are lucky in Leicestershire, in that over the past two years a new district general hospital has been opened. It is beginning to play a very big role in the health of those in the area. Indeed, phase 1 has been opened and phase 2 is due to be opened shortly. It is important that we should continue to have specialty hospitals near city centres and do our best to fund them and see that they are properly maintained and, at the same time, keep our local country hospitals viable as well.
In the Leicester area we are very proud of the NHS and the feeling of my constituents is that they wish to see a thriving NHS which continues to provide as good a care as can be found or bought anywhere. I am impressed by the plans of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister to engage in a big building programme and for the improvement and recruitment of staff. We should speed that work, but not at the expense of smaller centres of excellence such as the Market Harborough cottage hospital.

Mr. Derek Spencer: When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was in Leicester recently, speaking about a specific project, she said that it was up to the Leicester Members of Parliament to fight for the money. We are trying to live up to her injunction tonight. I apologise if we have taken her advice too literally and detained her rather longer tonight than she anticipated.
Glenfield general hospital opened relatively recently in Leicester. It is a jewel in the health care service. One of my

constituents who was treated there recently said that it gave him "five-star treatment". If only those who criticise the closure of outdated and outworn health service facilities spent as much time glorifying what has actually been built, they would do a service to the community.
In 1987–88 there will be new capital expenditure in the Leicestershire health authority amounting to £1·4 million. There will be an increase in revenue expenditure of £3·8 million and 274 full-time equivalent posts will be added to those already employed by the Health Service.
We are talking about success. Just because we are here tonight like Oliver Twist with our hands extended for more money does not mean that we are anything other than anxious to reveal and proclaim how successful the increase in spending in Leicestershire has been in order to raise it so far up the league in the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) has already shown.
Four projects are planned over the next four years at at the Leicester Royal infirmary, each with a capital value in excess of £1 million. At the Leicester general hospital, there are two such projects and at the Glenfield general hospital we have not stood still. In addition to the scheme to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) referred, there is to be a new cardiothoracic department. Work is due to start on it in the winter of 1990.
What, therefore, we are saying to my hon. Friend the Minister is set against the background of very great achievement and budgeted growth for the next four years, especially on the capital side. It is in marked distinction to what we saw under the Labour Government of the 1970s. Let nobody forget that for a moment.
The next feature against which we set the background of our plea is the impressive record of cost improvement programmes and Rayner scrutinies in which the authority has indulged. It has rolled up its sleeves and put out a variety of its services to competitive tendering, which in the years 1985–86 and 1986–87 will result in a cost saving of approximately £1·4 million. It is saving about £37,000 for recruitment advertising, £60,000 on fuel cost savings, £150,000 on nurse shift arrangements and £100,000 on management costs. It is not only a question of more money being spent; it is also a question of more money being spent better. The authority also intends to put out more of its services to competitive tendering. In the year 1987–88 that should result in a further saving of £750,000, which means that more money will be available for patient care.
My hon. Friend could therefore be forgiven if she were to say, "What are you grumbling about? Surely you have done very well indeed." As she will know, coming as she does from the east midlands, we are not easily satisfied. Good is not good enough. We want to be the best. That is why we are here tonight.
I want to add my voice to what has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, but also to direct attention to the problems in my constituency, especially to the burdens that are placed upon it by the fact that, in part, it is an inner-city seat.
First, a considerable problem is the high incidence of coronary disease among the Asian population in Leicester, where there are at least 45,000 people of Asian origin. There is proven evidence of a high incidence of coronary complaints in that community. That has been recognised by the authority, and it has already put forward bids for two separate projects under the inner area programme to


the Department of the Environment. We await in hope the outcome of those submissions. Even if they were to be granted, as we hope they will, that does not distract attention from the fact that they are symptomatic of the special problem under which the Health Service in Leicester has to labour.
Secondly, when the Asian community first came to Leicester in any significant numbers, about 20 years ago, virtually all the women were of child-bearing age. But those people are now a little older. In the years to come, there will be a considerable bulge in the number of old people in Leicester of Asian origin who will require treatment from the services that concentrate on the elderly. Thus, once again, we shall be placing a greater burden on existing facilities. We should have an eye to that now, and should be planning for it, instead of letting ourselves be overtaken by events.
We have other problems that merely reflect problems that every constituency has to bear. For example, the health authority has already laid down a programme to deal with AIDS. An agenda has been drawn up, and various counselling services have been put into place. The infectious diseases unit has taken appropriate steps. But yet again, I fear that we must anticipate increased expenditure in the years to come.
Although Leicester is a fair city, and a city of enterprise, not even that city can manage to avoid the effects of drug abuse. We have already had allocated to us the not inconsiderable sum of £94,000 in order to set up facilities, including counselling and advice centres, and a scheme to train volunteers. That money is in the pipeline.
It was in regard to that scheme that my hon. Friend the Minister said that we should fight for the money. When I heard her casting her bread upon the waters, I took advantage of the opportunity that she so propitiously offered, so I apologise for the fact that it has come back to her almost a thousandfold. However, the problem of drug abuse will eventually cast its shadow across our health facilities.
There will also be increased expenditure over the computerisation of records for cervical cytology and the recall scheme. That computerisation has not yet been carried out, but we foresee increased expenditure. The regional specialty services that we are proud to have within the city's bounds were also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough. We can foresee them expanding in several areas in which they are outstanding.
Only a short time ago, I went to a function put on by Moslem Aid, which is a charity of distinction in Leicester. It was donating a considerable sum to the renal unit and the work that it does, which is work of a high order. Once again, it is a facility where the demand exceeds the supply. There is an increased call for services.
That is the picture that I wish briefly to sketch. There is much more that could be said, which would present a most impressive case on behalf of the area health authority for an even greater complement of resources than that which we have already received. We do not come in any grudging spirit, but in one of optimism. We hope that fighting for the money will pay in the long run.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): It was with great

pleasure that I heard that my right hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) had been successful in his request for the second Adjournment debate. It was a great pleasure too to hear my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) supporting my hon. Friend. I thank my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend, but especially my hon. Friend for his kindness to me since I became a Member of this place. No one could have been more kindly, courteous, friendly and helpful to someone arriving here for the first time. It is the greatest pleasure for me to be able to put that on record.
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about my experience before coming to the House. I must tell him that being a chairman of a health authority for some years before coming here does not make my job any easier. As one's sympathies are often already established, and as I have to take decisions for the National Health Service, I think that sometimes my experience makes my job a little harder.
My hon. Friend has said that he has been raising the issue of NHS funding for Leicestershire for about 28 years. I asked him who had responded to the first Adjournment debate that he raised on the matter 28 years ago, and it seems that the Minister's name has been lost in the mists of obscurity. I hope that the same thing will not happen tonight.
I share with my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend the privilege of being a Trent Member. As has been said, I visited Leicester recently and saw the Glenfield hospital. I was most impressed. I had an enjoyable and stimulating discussion with members of staff of the different disciplines. I wish to thank and congratulate them on the first-class service that they are providing for the people of Leicestershire and for those further afield.
My hon. and learned Friend spoke about coronary disease among Asians. He may recall that during the most recent Question Time for my Department I answered a question tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on this topic. My hon. and learned Friend might like to read my response to it.
I have seen the results of a survey on heart disease by an organisation that is called the Confederation of Indian Associations, which were published in May. The survey revealed that there is a problem and that there is a high incidence of coronary heart disease among the Asian population. It is higher among Asians than among the population generally. The evidence and the research are patchy and, therefore, it is difficult to establish the pattern of causality. For example, the research on diet that has been undertaken tends to be confined to London. It has tended to concentrate on groups such as Gujaratis, who are substantially vegetarian. It is difficult to establish from their rather good diet whether there is an influence of diet on heart disease.
Against that background, it is not possible to say that Asian communities generally have a better or worse diet than other groups, especially when we think of the delicious samosas, fried foods, pastries and sweet desserts with which I have been delighted to be regaled at the Indian banquets which I have attended.
The report states that there appears to be a high level of heart disease in urban Asian populations thoughout the world. There may be something more serious. We do not know the level of heart disease among the Asian population in the countries from which they come. We cannot tell at the moment whether it is simply a cultural


pattern that they bring with them, or whether their level of heart disease here is higher than at home, or possibly lower than at home. We need to know a lot more about that matter. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has taken the interests of his constituents so much to heart that he has raised this matter tonight. I commend to him the publication that I mentioned.
My hon. Friend also mentioned problems in Leicester, including AIDS, drug abuse and the cervical call and recall scheme. He will know, of course, that overall the Government have put an additional £1 billion into the Health Service for the year starting in April, and that will cover not only hospitals but the full range of health services. Active discussions are going on as to how to allocate that money—first, for top-sliced activities and, secondly, for what is left to the regional health authorities. It will then be for regional health authorities to decide how to allocate money between the districts. In that sense, I regret to say that my three hon. Friends who are here tonight are in competition. The region will decide how to allocate the money between the districts. That is right because of cross-boundary flows and the movement of population that might continue.
My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Harborough raised another important and difficult matter. He asked, "Is bigger best?" I hope he will accept the view that there is no simple formula. No simple rule or pattern of activity could be best. Indeed, if it was best at the time it was planned, it probably would not be best at the time it finally was implemented. By the time it was implemented, needs might have changed. Therefore, it would be foolish to say that one pattern of work is best. A difficult dilemma exists. Within the Health Service there are centripetal and centrifugal forces. The centripetal force—seeking the centre—is that for many of our activities we need expensive equipment and scarce skills. Therefore, they need to be concentrated in magnificent and, very often, modern hospitals.
In those hospitals, staff have to work that much harder to be human. They have to work that much harder to bring things to the human scale and to enable patients to feel that they are not part of the machinery but are being treated, first and foremost, as people. In many parts of the country—Trent is one—this matter is being taken seriously. Staff are being assisted and trained to ensure that the body on the table is regarded, first, as a person and, secondly, as a medical problem.
The centrifugal forces are just as strong as we push for care in the community, as we push for more day cases, which means that a person will go into hospital only for day treatment and then go home and get further assistance at home. We expect our GPs to do more work in their surgeries, and they are willingly doing that. There is a force away from big hospitals. In many parts of the country tremendous efforts are being made not only to keep cottage hospitals but to build more community hospitals. Elsewhere in Trent region that is happening. The Ilkeston community hospital will open in 1987. Some money has had to be reallocated to it from districts such as southern Derbyshire to make sure that that happens. It is partly in response to the sorts of needs that my hon. Friend mentioned.
The problem facing smaller units is that they have to work harder to do more intensive and highly skilled work. Increasingly, there are certain areas of work that we would not expect them to do. Paediatrics—the care of sick

babies—would probably be one of those areas. It may also include some maternity work, as my hon. Friend mentioned. The trouble with maternity cases is that one does not know that one is high risk until it happens. As a general policy—as a patient I have been dubious about this, but I can see the force of the argument—over a number of years we have brought more and more maternity patients into hospital and more and more into the high tech side of maternity care. Our first consideration must be the baby, and then we should consider the mother. No one speaks for the baby. It is important to bear that in mind.

Sir John Farr: I apologise to my hon. Friend for interrupting her. She has had a trying evening. Does she think that in maternity and geriatric cases the same principle applies, which is that the person much prefers to be fairly near his home town and is probably a much better patient? In that way the patient can have ready access to visitors and his visitors will not have to rely on difficult or non-existent transport.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Mrs. Currie: I take on board entirely what my hon. Friend said. However, I must put it to him—this is a matter with which I have wrestled, having been involved in obstetrics as a member of a major teaching authority—that if we wish to continue our progress in bringing down the death rate of sickly babies, we cannot always do it in the kinds of services and hospitals in which our mothers bore us.
We have been tremendously successful. The perinatal mortality rate per 1,000 live births in the past six years has dropped from 15 per 1,000 to nine. That is a remarkable achievement. With the best will in the world, I am convinced that that could not have been done without the high tech work. Indeed, some of the best perinatal mortality rates in the country are in some of the poorest areas which, nevertheless, have concentrated much of their maternity care on some of the finest hospitals in the world. We must accept that we must consider the results. I hope that I have convinced my hon. Friend that we are alert to the problem of whether bigger or smaller is better. There is no easy answer and the debate will undoubtedly continue for many years.
Both my hon. Friends have clearly pointed to the perennial dilemma of the Health Service—the Oliver Twist syndrome. We have finite resources. The Health Service always has finite resources. But expectations are infinite and increasingly one comes to the conclusion that the possibilities also look infinite. There are operations that we are doing now, such as the heart transplant on a young woman like Debbie Leonard, whom I met in Mr. Speaker's rooms on Monday. She is now fit and well with someone else's heart beating inside her. Kidney patients now achieve a survival rate of 86 per cent. after five years. That is remarkable. The failures in kidney donation are now the rarities and the number of failures is falling all the time. I mentioned the perinatal mortality rate. There are hundreds of life-saving interventions done now that simply were not possible or successful until recently. No doubt as they become standard practice, so we shall find that something else comes up that we all want to do.
My hon. Friends asked about the resource allocation working party. They will know that it has been in operation now for 10 years. It was introduced by a Labour Government and espoused by this Government. We looked at it again and we calculated the figures several times, which in some cases has hurt local authorities. Yesterday, for example, I was in south-west Surrey which before 1981 was substantially below its target and now within a space of 12 months is well above it, not because it had much more money, but because the calculations have been done differently. That creates serious management problems which we recognise.
I have said to my hon. Friends that within the region the allocation is a matter for that region. They will accept that I cannot comment further on that, except to say that if one is looking for the bread that is floating on the waters, having a word with the regional health authority is sometimes useful.
My hon. Friend will know that we are now looking hard at the RAWP formula. The purpose of that is that the substantial progress made under RAWP has resulted in all but the two North Thames regions being within 4 per cent. of their target share of resources, so it becomes increasingly important that the target should be accurate and should reflect relative need as far as possible. Therefore, the aim of the review is to look at the scope for refining the RAWP formula—perhaps bringing it up to date a little—and improving its measurement of need.
The variants that are being covered take account of previous criticisms of the formula — for example, morbidity, social deprivation and the special problems of the inner cities, some of which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South mentioned. We must pay attention to those difficulties, yet they are difficult to grasp. The measurement of the population need is at the heart of the problem. RAWP currently uses standard mortality rates, which are effectively the death rates. That may not tell us very much about what people suffer from, and that might be different from what kills them. If someone dies quickly from a disease, that may cause less drain on the Health Service than if they suffer for a long time from a disease which does not kill them. We are examining that point very carefully.
We must consider whether there are direct links between deprivation and ill-health that we can counter with Health Service resources. We must examine the case of the patient with no family support and inadequate housing who may well be the kind of geriatric patient to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough referred, who may need longer in hospital. In certain parts of the country, longer stays may be necessary, not for traditional reasons, but simply to ensure the health needs of that patient and the Health Service may have to do more there than somewhere else.
We have been considering teaching hospital costs which particularly affect the Trent region and we have also considered the teaching hospitals, at Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield. The costs associated with the teaching of medical students are separately identified and they are protected from redistribution under RAWP. We are considering whether the arrangements could be improved.
We are also concerned about patient flows across regional boundaries and I have already mentioned patient

flow across district boundaries. Regions' RAWP targets include an adjustment to allow for patient flows across boundaries. We need to know whether that reflects the costs involved as fairly as possible or whether improvements can be made. Much of that information will become available as the Körner information systems are installed in our regional health authorities and district health authorities.
When I was the chairman of a health authority, I was bedevilled by this problem. Half the time I would ask questions and then be told that the information was simply not available or when it was available, it was available so late as to be less than valuable in terms of planning. It is a major task to improve that supply of information but it is under way. As we improve that, RAWP and its formulae can become more accurate and reflective of genuine need.
The timetable is as follows—the report is to include recommendations on the timing of any proposed changes and the new data that become available through Körner will be introduced in health authorities from 1987–88 onwards. The timing of some changes may be linked to the timetable for the implementation of Körner. That will depend on the best method of implementation from region to region.
I would now like to consider the Trent and Leicester health authorities. Whatever else we are doing, we are sending more money to Trent. The authority is using the money very well to care for more patients. It is worth putting the figures on the record. In 1978–79 Trent received a revenue allocation of £366 million. This year, the figure is £907 million. In cash terms, its allocation has risen nearly three times in the space of a mere six or seven years. That is quite remarkable.
Capita money has increased from £42 million in 1978–79 to £65 million today. A large chunk of that is being spent in Leicester. As a result, we are treating nearly 600,000 in-patients a year in Trent. The exact figure is 579,000 and that is an increase upon the figure of 461,000 in 1978. Out-patient attendances have risen in the same period from 2·8 million a year to 3·35 million a year. If anyone had challenged us to care for 3·35 million out-patients in Trent six years ago, we would not have thought it possible, yet that is what has happened. Day cases have risen, and the numbers of direct care staff — doctors, dentists and midwives — have all increased. That is certainly something of which we can all be very proud. I am especially proud to see the way in which money is being translated into patient care.
Leicestershire district health authority is the largest in the country, caring for a population of more than 800,000, so the size of the figures to some extent reflects the population change. We have to start from 1982, when the boundary changes were made, as figures for earlier years are not strictly comparable. In 1982–83, the authority spent £118 million. This year, the figure is just under £154 million. That is a staggering increase. In real terms, there has been a steady rise which no doubt turns some of our colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), green with envy. RAWP is working, and the money is being allocated to districts in the greatest need.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South identified the most spectacular change. In recent years, the district has been spending capital allocations of more than £10 million per year. As my hon. Friend will know from the previous debate, Hillingdon has spent only


£6·5 million over several years, but Leicestershire, has spent some £45 million since 1982. That, again, is a staggering sum and I was delighted to hear of the ways in which it was being spent. We shall no doubt have other opportunities to hear of further developments being achieved.
A quick calculation on the back of an envelope shows that, size for size, per head of population, on capital alone Leicestershire is spending almost twice what Hillingdon is able to spend. That is what RAWP is all about. It poses problems for colleagues in some parts of the country, of which we must take cognisance, but it means that opportunities are being developed to provide better health care for local people in other parts of the country.
On that basis, I am glad to have had this opportunity to air some of these issues. I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough for the courteous way in which he put his points and to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South for the detail that he offered. We look forward to being nudged even further on these issues. I hope that the bread will taste good when it comes in. It is certainly being put to good use in Trent region and in my hon. Friends' constituencies.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Ten o'clock.